Jacob M.P. vs The Registrar General Of Births … on 4 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4195 of 2009(Y)


1. JACOB M.P., S/O.P.J.PAUL, AGED 36
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF BIRTHS AND
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :04/03/2009

 O R D E R
                        S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                 ------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C)No.4195 OF 2009
               ----------------------------------------
                Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner, Sri. Jacob M.P., claims to have been born on

10.7.1972. The name of his father is P.J. Paul and that of his

mother is Lillykutty. According to the petitioner, these details

were correctly entered in the SSLC book and the passport. When

the petitioner got an employment in Australia for which purpose a

birth certificate from the Local Authority was required as the

basic document regarding identity, the petitioner applied to the

first respondent for a birth certificate. Pursuant thereto, the

petitioner was given Ext.P2 certificate, in which his name is

shown as `Chacko’, his mother’s name as `Rosa’, and his father’s

name as `Ouseph Pilo’. According to the petitioner, his father’s

name is ‘P.J. Paul’ and his mother’s name is ‘Lillykkutty’. The

petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent for

correction of his name, his father’s name and his mother’s name

in the birth register. The same has been rejected by Ext.P3 on

the ground that the application is not complete and that no

W.P.(c)No.4195/09 2

change can be made in the register as per the entries in the

passport. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 and seeks the

following reliefs:

“i. Call for the records relating to Ext.P3
and quash the same by issuance of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd
respondent to make correction in the birth register
relating to the petitioner in accordance with the
S.S.L.C. and do the same forthwith”.

2. When the writ petition came up before me, since the

petitioner contends that the names given in Ext.P2 are the

church names of the petitioner, his father and his mother, I

directed the petitioner to produce documents to show that the

names of the petitioner and his parents included in Ext.P2 are

the church names and Ext.P2 relates to the petitioner himself.

What the petitioner has now produced before me are three

certificates from the Village Officer stating that the persons

shown in Ext.P2 are the same as the persons, who the

petitioner claims to be. I expressed a doubt as to how a

Village Officer could, without verifying the birth register, say

with any amount of certainty as to whether persons mentioned

in Ext.P2 are the same as some other person. I also enquired

W.P.(c)No.4195/09 3

as to why, if the names included in Ext.P2 were the church

names of the petitioner and his parents, he could not produce

certificates from the church to that effect. The petitioner could

not furnish a plausible explanation. He also did not seek time

to produce such certificates. Instead he submitted that this

Court may pass appropriate orders in the writ petition.

3. Practically what the petitioner wants to do is to

have a new birth certificate including a new name and new

names of parents. As such there is no evidence to show that

the entries in the birth register of which Ext.P2 is the extract

relates to the petitioner at all, except that the address therein

is that of his parents. When the petitioner contended that the

names included in the birth register are church names, the

best evidence for the same are the certificates from the

church. The petitioner does not even offer to try to obtain and

produce the same. He has also not been offered any

explanation as to why he cannot obtain and produce the same.

As such he has kept the best evidence away from this Court.

In such circumstances I am not inclined to give relief to the

petitioner relying the certificates of the Village Officer, in the

absence of any explanation as to how without even examining

W.P.(c)No.4195/09 4

the birth register the Village Officer could certify that the

persons whose names are given in the birth register are the

same as the petitioner and his parents. As such it is not safe

to rely on the materials produced by the petitioner to direct

correction of the names in the birth register substituting the

petitioner’s and his parents name therein which would be not

correction but substitution, especially when the names bear no

comparison whatsoever and no explanations are also

forthcoming. In fact it is not clear as to whether Ext.P2 relates

to the petitioner at all.

In the above circumstances, I am not satisfied that on

these materials, the petitioner can seek correction of the birth

register as requested by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ

petition is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd

W.P.(c)No.4195/09 5