IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 25119 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BRIDGET JOSEPH K., D/O.K.X.JOSEPH, KURISINGAL HOUSE, BOLGHATTY, MULAVUKADU P.O., COCHIN-682504. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K.JOY,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25119 of 2010(L) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R2 DATED 25.1.2000. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM ASSISSI VIDYANIKETAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DATED 20.7.2010. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE ST. SEBASTIAN'S CHURCH, DATED 20.7.2010. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE LAKSHMI HOSPITAL ERNAKULAM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.7.2010. EXT.P5 COPIES OF THE WRITTEN APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AND THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PRINCIPAL DATED 21.7.2010 AND 27.7.2010. EXT.P6 COPIES OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SSLC, VOTER'S IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER, AND THE COMMUNICATION OF THE LAKSHMI HOSPITAL, ERNAKUILAM TO THE R2 DATED 23..7.2010. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE R2 DATED 21.7.2010. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE R1 DATED 21.1.2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.25119 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011. JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to direct the 2nd respondent to accept Exts.P5 and P6 applications and its enclosures from the petitioner, process them in accordance with law and to make corrections in Ext.P1 birth certificate as requested by the petitioner ignoring the stipulations in Ext.P8 circular. 2. The name of the petitioner's son was registered in the Corporation of Cochin under the provisions of Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Act , 1969 as 'K.J. Kenus'. Ext.P1 is the Birth Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent carrying such an entry. However, in the school records and in the scholarship certificates issued and in the certificates issued for his extra curricular activities, name of the petitioner's son was entered as 'Kenas John'. Perusal of Ext.P5 would also reveal that the petitioner has made a further request before the 2nd respondent to correct her name as well in the birth register as 'Bridget Joseph' in stead of 'Bridget John'. That apart, she has also requested W.P.(C).NO.25119 OF 2010 : 2 : for correcting the name of her former husband as 'K.V. John' instead of 'John K.V', in Ext.P1 birth certificate. The contention of the petitioner is that subsequently, the said applications along with enclosures were returned to her and at that point of time, she was informed that in view of Circular No.68413/803/2009/LSGD dated 21.1.2010 of the first respondent correction in the names of the children could be made only once, that too, only before admitting them in the school. In the circumstances, the petitioner apprehends that the application in the printed format submitted along with Exts.P5 and P6 but retained while returning Exts.P5 and P6 would not be considered. In the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned standing counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents cannot rely on the aforesaid circular dated 21.1.2010 and reject the request of the petitioner in view of the fact that the said circular was set aside by this Court in the decision reported in Shipna Jose v. Registrar ( 2010 (2) KLT 978). Learned W.P.(C).NO.25119 OF 2010 : 3 : standing counsel for the respondents also endorsed the same. In this case, even going by the contention of the petitioner Exts.P5 and P6 along with the enclosures were returned to her. Therefore, to enable consideration of the requests the petitioner has to return them. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to accept Exts.P5 and P6 along with enclosures in case the petitioner resubmit them. If proper application in the prescribed form, if any, was not submitted it will be open to the 2nd respondent to require the petitioner to submit such application as also, any other documents required for the purpose of considering the request made by the petitioner. Going by the decision of this Court in Shipna Jose v. Registrar (2010 (2) KLT 978) the 2nd respondent cannot rely on Ext.P8 circular to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for correction in Ext.P1 birth certificate, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of W.P.(C).NO.25119 OF 2010 : 4 : resubmission of Exts.P5 and P6. Needless to say that any change with respect to the name of petitioner's former husband 'John K.V' shall be done only with notice to him. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. cl