Dismissed

Radhamony v. Thiruvalla Municipality and Others

Kerala HC19 Nov 2010WP(C)/29804/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to correct his son's name in the birth register from 'Danu Sabu' to 'Sanu Sabu'. The petition was dismissed because the requisite fee for the name change was remitted only after filing the petition, negating any alleged failure by respondents to perform statutory duty.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Court afresh after the application for correction of name is presented with the requisite fee.

Radhamony Vs Thiruvalla Municipality and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 29804 of 2010(A)

¶6

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶8

RADHAMONY, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SABU, PUTHENPURACKAL, KUNDHIRICKAL P.O., THALAVADY, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

THE REGISTRAR, BIRTH AND DEATH, THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY, THIRUVALLA - 689 101.

¶13

THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVALLA - 689 101.

¶14

BY SRI.S.SUBASH CHAND, SC FOR R2

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.

¶17

W.P.(C) No.29804 of 2010

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2010

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The prayer in this writ petition is for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent, Thiruvalla Municipality, to correct the name of the petitioner's son as “ Sanu Sabu ” instead of “ Danu Sabu ”.

¶21

When the writ petition came up for admission on 13.10.2010, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Thiruvalla Municipality submitted that Ext.P5 application has not been received in the Municipality. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereupon sought a week's time.

¶22

Today, when the writ petition again came up for admission, referring to the instructions received on 8.11.2010, the learned standing counsel submitted that till that date, neither Ext.P5 nor the documents accompanying the same have been received in the Municipality. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to a piece of paper in his hand submitted that the fee for change of name in the Register of Births and Deaths was remitted on 21.10.2010. It is evident from the statements made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side that on 27.9.2010, when this writ petition was filed or on 28.9.2010 when it came up for admission

¶23

W.P.(C) No.29804/2010

¶24

¶25

for the first time and on 13.10.2010 when it came up after it was adjourned to enable the learned standing counsel to get instructions, the petitioner had not remitted the requisite fee for change of name or submitted the original of Ext.P5 application. In this writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that the respondents have failed to discharge their statutory duty. In view of the fact that the fee for effecting the change of name in the Register of Births and Deaths was remitted only on 21.10.2010, I am of the opinion that there was no failure on the part of the respondents to discharge their statutory duty.

¶26

I accordingly hold that no relief can be granted in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move this Court afresh after the application for correction of name is duly presented with the requisite fee before the Municipality.

¶27

P.N. RAVINDRAN,

¶28

JUDGE.

¶29

nj.

Radhamony v. Thiruvalla Municipality and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhamony v. Thiruvalla Municipality and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shinu M.S. Vs K.P.S.C. & Ors.

Chapparappadavu Juma-Ath Palli Committee Vs Secretary Chapparappadavu Grama Panchaya

Edavacode Asokan Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Thomas Abraham Vs the Secretary

L.Aloshious Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

T.G.Sajeevan Vs the R.D.O. and Another