Allowed

Smt.Suhara v. the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfa

Kerala HC9 Dec 2010WP(C)/25269/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition involving a mother seeking correction of her son's name in the birth certificate, the High Court of Kerala dismissed one petition as un-pressed. Another petition was disposed of; the order rejecting the application was set aside, directing authorities to consider the application on merits.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting the application to correct the name was set aside. The respondent was directed to consider the application on merits and pass an order within one month.

Smt.Suhara Vs the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfa — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 25269 of 2010(G)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

--------------------

¶9

SMT.SUHARA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL HAKKIM, HOUSE NO.11/225, KALARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTUVALLY, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARUR.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

--------------------

¶13

1. THE KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 025.

¶14

2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.

¶15

3. K.M.SAJIN, KALARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIRAYAMPANAYIKULAM, PANAYIKULAM P.O., PIN-683 511.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, KMTWF BOARD BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not intending to pursue the matter any further .

¶20

Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed as not pressed.

¶21

9.12.2010 Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶26

W.P.(C). NO. 25269 OF 2010

¶27

------------------------------DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 and

¶30

for a direction directing the 3^rd respondent to issue birth certificate to the petitioner after effecting correction in the name of the petitioner 'Bino' as 'Bino Kumar. R' in the birth register.

¶31

Petitioner submitted an application before the 3^rd respondent for correction of his name in the birth register as 'Bino Kumar. R.' instead of 'Bino'. The application was rejected by the 3^rd respondent by Ext.P7 order stating that correction of name is not

¶32

possible due to the existence of the Circular No.B1-20741/2009 dated 8/12/2010.

¶33

Petitioner is a graduate in Mechanical Engineering.

¶34

His name is Bino Kumar. R as per SSLCertificate, degree certificate, Election Commission of India identity card and ration

¶35

-2-

¶36

W.P.(C).No.25269/2010

¶37

card. Copies of the documents mentioned above are marked as Exts.P1, P2, P3 and P4 respectively. It is stated that the petitioner applied for passport and at the time of verification of the certificates, the officials of the passport office noticed that the name of the petitioner is written as 'Bino' in the birth certificate and therefore the application was returned. Ext.P5 is the copy of the birth certificate. Ext.P6 is the certificate issued by the Tahsildar certifying that the person bearing name Bino Kumar.R and Bino is one and the same person. After getting Ext.P7 communication from the 3^rd respondent, petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation before the 2^nd respondent.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 allows the Registrar to correct the wrong entries made in the birth register. The lst respondent has the authority to correct an improper entry made in the birth register and corresponding entry in the birth certificate.

¶39

-3-

¶40

W.P.(C).No.25269/2010

¶41

This Court had occasion to consider similar question

¶42

in the case reported in Shipna Jose v. Registrar (2010 (2) KLT

¶43

978). This Court considered similar questions and held that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 allows correction or cancellation of entry in the Register of Births and Deaths, that the legal position has now been laid down in the later decision by the Division Bench of this Court reported in Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika (2009 (4) KLT 714). The Division Bench after considering various aspects laid down the law which reads as follows:

¶44

“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.”

¶45

-4-

¶46

W.P.(C).No.25269/2010

¶47

In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ext.P7 is

¶48

set aside. The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P8 representation on merits and allow the correction on being satisfied that it requires such a correction. The petitioner shall comply with the formalities required for submission of the application. The order shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment on condition that the petitioner complies with the formalities required for submission of the application.

¶49

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶50

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶51

kcv.

Smt.Suhara v. the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Suhara v. the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Sree Vidhyadhiraja Vidya Samajam

Zora Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation

Treesamma Raju Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Prasanth.N Vs Smt.Niveditha.P.Haran,Secretary,Revenue

George Thomas Vs Dy.Tahsildar (R/R) and Others

M.Abdulla Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer