IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16284 of 2010(I)
1. DIJO JOHN, ALUMKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE),
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.DEEPAK
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :30/06/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 16284 of 2010-I
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P10
communication issued by the respondent rejecting the application to correct
the date of birth in the Birth Register. Even though notice was ordered and
it was received by the respondent, there is no appearance for the respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The short facts leading to the dispute are the following: It is
pointed out that the petitioner was born to Shri A.J. John and Smt. Dolsy
John, on 17.9.1985 in the Taluk Hospital, Kanjirappally. In the birth
certificate issued by the respondent, the date is noted incorrectly as
27.9.1985, a true copy of which is produced as Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the
application for correction of date of birth submitted before the respondent.
The petitioner has produced herein Exts.P3 to P6, viz. copies of SSLC
certificate, Passport, Identity Card issued by the Election Commission and
Baptism Certificate issued by St. Mary’s Church, Anickad East showing the
date of birth as 17/09/1985. The petitioner has also produced the necessary
declaration as provided under Rule 11(2) of the Kerala Registration of
wpc 16284/2010 2
Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 setting forth the nature of the error and also
the true facts of the case. Exts.P8 and P9 are also certificates issued by the
President, Anickad Regional Farmers Service Co-operative Bank and the
Chairman, Standing Committee, Pampady Block Panchayat.
4. The stand taken by the respondent in Ext.P10 is that the entry was
recorded as per the birth intimation/birth report received on 4.10.1985.
However, the birth report dated 4.10.1985 is not available. In the light of
the above circumstances, the application has been rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons stated
for rejection cannot be supported. As the petitioner has complied with the
provisions of the Act along with the requirement of Rule 11(2) of the
Rules, the respondent is bound to consider the same on merits. Merely
because the hospital record is not available, that is not a ground to reject the
application. Reliance is also placed on the decision of a Division Bench of
this Court in Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika (2009 (4) KLT 714).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only a clerical
error that has happened in recording the date of birth. All the supporting
documents are relied upon to submit that the correct date of birth is
17.9.1985. Rules 11(1) and 11(2) of the relevant rules prescribe the
method by which the Registrar shall consider the application. It is clear
wpc 16284/2010 3
from the pleadings that the petitioner has produced the declaration from
two persons of the locality who are having knowledge of the facts of the
case. Therefore, Rule 11(2) permits the Registrar to correct the entry in the
manner prescribed under Section 15 upon production of such a declaration.
Herein it is clear that the said method provided under the rule was not
considered while issuing Ext.P10. Apart from that, the legal position
appears to be that the satisfaction of the Registrar should be arrived at based
on the materials produced by the petitioner. Therefore, merely because the
intimation of the hospital is not available, there cannot be a refusal to
exercise the power. The Division Bench in Malavika’s case (supra) while
considering a similar issue, held in para 4 of the judgment that “the law
does not contemplate a person to have a wrong name in the register or a
mistaken identity in the register or to have wrong particulars regarding the
date, place etc. in the register of birth or death. It is also to be noted that the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 does not create or extinguish
any right; the Act is intended only to regulate the process and procedures of
registration of births and deaths and the correction of any such entry. Once
the Act permits such correction either in form or substance, the Rules are
intended only to regulate the procedure and not to prohibit such correction.”
7. Hence, it is evident that the respondent is bound to consider the
wpc 16284/2010 4
documents relied upon by the petitioner while considering the application
for correction of the entry. The documents produced by the petitioner show
that the date of birth recorded therein is 17.9.1985. This is an aspect for
consideration by the respondent.
8. Therefore, Ext.P10 is quashed. There will be a direction to the
respondent to reconsider the application with notice to the petitioner within
three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and a
decision will be taken in terms of the findings rendered above.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/