High Court Kerala High Court

Nidhin A. Unnithan vs The Secretary on 30 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Nidhin A. Unnithan vs The Secretary on 30 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21638 of 2008(A)


1. NIDHIN A. UNNITHAN,(MINOR),AGED 18,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY, OACHIRA GRAMA
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH

                For Respondent  :SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :30/01/2010

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                        ------------------
                       WP(C) No.21638 of 2008
                   --------------------------
              Dated, this the 30th day of January, 2010

                             JUDGMENT

1. The prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P3

and P5.

2. Petitioner submits that his correct name is Nidhin A. Unnithan.

According to him, by a mistake, his name was wrongly entered as

N.A. Sreejith Unnithan, in the register maintained by the 1st

respondent who is also the Registrar. An application was made for

correction and that was declined by Ext.P3 of the 1st respondent and

which was affirmed by Ext.P5 of the 2nd respondent. It is in these

circumstances, the writ petition is filed challenging the aforesaid

orders.

3. This Court in Varghese v. Director of Panchayat (2008 (2) KLT

278) has held that it is well within the power of the Registrar to

make the correction of mistakes. Although the request of the

petitioner involves a change in the name entered in the register, still

W.P.(C).21638/08
2

on facts, it is evident that it is on account of an obvious mistake,

the name was wrongly entered in the register. If that be so, it is

well within the power of the 1st respondent to correct the mistake.

Therefore, the view taken in Exts.P3 and P5 cannot accepted.

3. Accordingly Exts.P3 and P5 are set aside and the 1st

respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in the light of the above

observations, on the application made by the petitioner. This shall

be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks

of production of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC,
JUDGE

mrcs