Disposed

Rani Joji v. Registrar of Births and Deaths

Kerala HC17 Jul 2012WP(C)/8796/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order rejecting their application to correct errors in their birth certificate regarding date of birth, father's name, and address. The Court found the rejection due to absence of sufficient documentary evidence unassailable, though it permitted a fresh application upon producing required documents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioners permitted to make fresh applications upon producing required documents.

Rani Joji Vs Registrar of Births and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2012/26TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 8796 of 2012 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RANI JOJI,

¶8

AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. JOJI WILLIAMS

¶9

MALIYEKKAL OLLUKKARAN HOUSE, POTTA, THRISSUR.

¶10

JOJI WILLIAMS S/O. WILLIAMS, MALIYEKKAL OLLUKKARAN HOUSE, POTTA, THRISSUR.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.KRISHNA KUMAR (ALAPPUZHA)

¶12

SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR

¶13

SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS

¶16

THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA-685584

¶17

IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶18

STATE OF KERALA

¶19

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY

¶20

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY

¶22

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUNITHA VINOD

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No. 8796 of 2012 (Y)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶27

EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

¶28

EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09-11-2011.

¶29

EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPIES OF THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BEFOE THE 1^ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE HOSPITAL.

¶31

EXHIBIT P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09-11-2012.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

¶33

// TRUE COPY //

¶34

P.A TO JUDGE.

¶35

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶36

W.P(C). No. 8796 OF 2012

¶37

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2012

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

The petitioners challenge Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent. According to them when the first petitioner made application through her father for Birth Certificate, it was found that her date of birth, father's name and her permanent address were erroneously mentioned in the Birth Certificate, a copy of which is Ext.P1. So she made Ext.P2 application for correction of th aforesaid particulars, including Ext.P3 affidavit. That application was rejected by Ext.P5 order.

¶40

In Ext.P5, in so far as the date of birth is concerned, the request for correction has been rejected stating that the same cannot be allowed. In so far as the request for correcting the name of her father and her permanent address are concerned, the request has been rejected mainly on account of want of sufficient documents. It is seeking to quash this order the writ petition has been filed.

¶41

In so far as the date of birth, the correction of which has

¶42

WP(c). No.8796/12

¶43

¶44

been rejected is concerned, even going by case pleaded by petitioners, apart from Ext.P3 affidavit they did not produce any evidence to indicate that date of birth now entered is erroneous. If that be so, the order of the respondent rejecting the request of the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal.

¶45

Then what remains is the request of the petitioners to correct the name of father and permanent address. In so far as this request is concerned, Ext.P5 shows that the SSLC Book or School Admission Certificate are the documents required for correcting the name and these documents were not produced. Similarly for correcting the address also, the petitioners did not produce any documents indicating first petitioner's permanent address as at the time of her birth. These two reasons to reject the request cannot be said to be irrelevant. In other words, the reasons stated in Ext.P5 are unassailable and for that reason Ext.P5 does not call for any interference.

¶46

Be that as it may, the request of the petitioner has been rejected mainly on account of want of sufficient documents and unacceptability of the documents produced. Therefore, this order cannot stand in the way of petitioners making fresh applications producing the required documents and if such an application is

¶47

WP(c). No.8796/12

¶48

¶49

made, first respondent will consider the same in accordance with law and a decision thereon will be taken untramelled by the view taken in Ext.P5.

¶50

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

¶53

Sou.

¶54

// True copy //

¶55

P.A. to Judge

Rani Joji v. Registrar of Births and Deaths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani Joji v. Registrar of Births and Deaths

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

Rasheed Vs Sheik Pareeth

Indira Pushpan Vs Excise Commissioner

K.P.Radhakrishnan Vs Deputy Collector (La) Thiruvananthapuram

Joby Thomas Vs G.Sreekumaran Nair

Chacko E.C. @ Chakkappan Vs N.Viswambaran, Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu

Akbar Vs Deputy Director