Allowed

George T.P. v. the Registrar of Births and Deaths

Kerala HC20 Oct 2016WP(C)/13266/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking a direction to the Registrar of Births and Deaths to correct the date of birth in the Birth Certificate. The Court directed the petitioner to produce declarations from credible persons, after which the Registrar must consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to produce two declarations from credible persons; direction to 1st Respondent to consider the representation and pass orders within three weeks.

George T.P. Vs the Registrar of Births and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

W.P(C).No.13266 of 2016(G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

GEORGE T.P., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, THIRUTHIKATTU, PADINJARE KARA, KOYYAM P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 142.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

1. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, THALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670141.

¶11

2. THE TALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESNETED BY ITS SECRETARY, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 141.

¶12

R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.ABHILASH R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J. MANU RAJ.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.13266 of 2016 (G)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶17

EXT.P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE	1ST PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE
	PETITIONER ISSUED BY	THE HEAD MISTRESS, GOVERNMENT HIGH
	SCHOOL, KOTTAYAM.
EXT.P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE	BIRTH REGISTER ISSUED BY THE
	1ST RESPONDENT DATED	13-04-2015.

¶18

EXT.P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.692/16 DATED 26/2/2016 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE THALUK HEAD QUARTERS ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXT.P4 THE TRUE THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶21

------------------------NIL.

¶22

Vku/[ true copy ]

¶23

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶24

---------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.13266 of 2016-G

¶25

¶26

Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner's grievance is that Ext.P4 application; for

¶29

correction of date of birth as also house name and addition of initials of the father in the Birth Certificate, has not been considered till date by the 1^st respondent.

¶30

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Municipality and the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶31

The petitioner's birth registered as declared on 09.04.79 was 07.04.1979 as evidenced from Exhibit P-2 Birth Certificate. However the petitioner's actual date of birth was 06.04.1979 as was declared elsewhere and as shown in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, which is evidenced by Exhibit P1. The mistake occurred, according to the petitioner, while intimating the date of birth by the Government Taluk Headquarters

¶32

¶33

WP(C) No.13266 of 2016

¶34

Hospital at Taliparamba. Hence, the father of the petitioner made an application to the Hospital; upon which the Superintendent of the Hospital requested the Secretary of the Municipality, vide Exhibit P3, to make necessary corrections in the Birth Certificate of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed Exhibit P4 representation before the 1^st respondent seeking the corrections aforementioned. The petitioner complains, the said application has not been considered till date.

¶35

The petitioner relies on two judgments of the Division

¶36

Bench of this Court in The Registrar of Births and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob - 2011 (3) KLT 461 and Chalakkudi Municipality v. Malavika- 2009 (4) KLT 714. In Thomas Jacob (supra) the Division Bench noticed the provisions, which permitted correction of date of birth in the Registers, being Section 15 of the Registration of Birth & Death Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births & Deaths Rules, 1999. Section 15 provides for correction or cancellation of entry in the Register of Births and Deaths. The requirement is only that the correction sought for, be proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar, subject to such Rules as made by the

¶37

WP(C) No.13266 of 2016

¶38

¶39

State Government. Rule 11(2) provides that on assertion of any entry in the Register of Births and Deaths to be erroneous, the Registrar can correct the entry in the manner prescribed under Section 15 upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. The Division Bench relied on a Baptism Certificate, the SSLC Book, the Passport issued to the petitioner and the declaration made by the father and mother in that case, to come to a conclusion that the correction could then be made by the Registrar.

¶40

Malavika (supra) though not on similar facts, all the same, declares that the emphasis as seen from the substantive provision in the Act is on the satisfaction of the Registrar; when correction is sought for in the Registers.

¶41

In the present case also, the claim of correct date, is supported by Exhibits P1 and P3. Exhibit P1 is the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and Exhibit P3 is the request of the Hospital itself, requesting the respondents to make necessary corrections in the Birth Certificate issued to the petitioner. The

¶42

¶43

WP(C) No.13266 of 2016

¶44

specific contention taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the mistakes occurred due to the lapse on the part of the Hospital authorities when intimating the birth to the Registrar.

¶45

In the circumstances detailed above, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to produce two declarations by credible persons as provided in Section 15 (which is also seen to have been produced before the Hospital as seen from Ext.P-3) and the 1^st respondent shall then consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 representation taking into account Exhibits P1 and P3; within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment along with the declarations.

¶46

The writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶47

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶48

vku/-

¶49

[ true copy ]

George T.P. v. the Registrar of Births and Deaths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George T.P. v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanjiramkulam Grama Panchayat Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Agricultural University Vs T.Godwin

The Executive Committee of Kerala Agricultural University Vs G. Kunjachan

Mohammed Basheer Vs State of Kerala

Rishikesan Nair v. Vs the State of Kerala

Smt.Sunitha Sahajan Vs the Adat Grama Panchayath,Puranattukara