IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18084 of 2008(C)
1. REMYA, W/O.SUBHASH KUMARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY, P
3. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS
For Petitioner :SRI.P.NARAYANAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :08/07/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= =W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = = =
No. 18084 OF 2008C
= = =
Dated this the 8th July 2008
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P6 and P7
orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 rejecting Exts. P4 and P5
applications made by the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case are that according to the petitioner,
her husband’s name is Subhash Kumaran. In support of this
contention, petitioner is referring to Ext. P1, her husband’s passport
where his name is entered as above. Referring to Ext. P1(a), it is
stated that her husband’s name is entered in her passport also as
above.
3. However, petitioner submits that in the marriage certificate
and also in the birth certificate issued to their child, the name of the
petitioner is wrongly entered as Subash P.V. Exts. P2 and P3 are the
marriage certificate and the birth certificate referred to above. It is
stated that realising the mistake as above, she submitted Exts. P4
W.P.(C) No. 18084 OF 2008
-2-
and P5 to respondents 2 and 3, seeking correction of Exts. P2 and
P3 by incorporating her husband’s name as Subhash Kumaran.
4. The requests so made by the petitioner has been rejected by
respondents 2 and 2 by Exts. P6 and P7. In Ext. P6, the request has
been rejected without any reason, but however, in Ext. P7, it is
stated that in view of the circular issued by the Chief Registrar of
Births and Deaths, the request cannot be considered. Counsel for
the petitioner contends that while rejecting Exts. P4 and P5, as per
Exts. P6 and P7 orders, respondents 2 and 3 have not exercised the
statutory power vested in them. It is also contended that the
aforesaid authorities have the power to examine the request made
on merits and pass orders correcting the mistakes if they are
satisfied that there exists a mistake. Learned counsel for the
petitioner is also relying on a judgment rendered by this Court in
Sivanandan v. Registrar of Births and Deaths {2007(3) KLT 721}.
5. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the
counsel for respondents 1 to 3, who have filed a counter affidavit
also. According to the respondents, there is no mistake in this case
to be corrected. This submission is made on the basis that the
W.P.(C) No. 18084 OF 2008
-3-
entries of the name of her husband have been made in Exts. P2 and
P3 on the basis of the entry in the school records.
6. Be that as it may, in my view, the matter needs to be
reconsidered by respondents 2 and 3. A reading of Ext. P6 shows
that although the petitioner had made a request, the 2nd respondent
has not given any reason for rejecting Ext. P4 application seeking
correction of Ext. P2 marriage certificate. Similarly, in Ext. P7,
issued by the 3rd respondent, apart from making reference to the
circular stated to have been issued the 3rd respondent also has not
made any independent examination of the claim made by the
petitioner. Therefore, there has been an improper exercise of the
statutory power and for that reason Exts. P6 and P7 cannot be
upheld.
7. Accordingly, Exts. P6 and P7 will stand quashed and
respondents 2 and 3 are directed to reconsider the request made by
the petitioner in Exts. P4 and P5 seeking correction of Ext. P2
marriage certificate and Ext. P3 birth certificate. Needless to say
that while orders are passed as above, the judgment of this Court
referred to above and also the materials to be produced by the
W.P.(C) No. 18084 OF 2008
-4-
petitioner shall be duly adverted to.
8. It is also directed that before final orders are passed, the
petitioner shall be given notice and an opportunity to make
representation in this matter. Orders shall be passed as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production
of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-