Allowed

Nisha Josey v. Secretary

Kerala HC14 Feb 2020WP(C)/4249/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for correction of her date of birth. The Court directed the Registry to entertain a fresh application with declarations by parents or credible persons under Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, mandating the exercise be completed within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh application with declarations; Registrar to correct entry and issue certified extract within one month.

Nisha Josey Vs Secretary — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.4249 OF 2020(E)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

NISHA JOSEY, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, VALIAVEETTIL ABEL JOSY, AGED 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALACKAL PARAMBIL, YMCA LANE, HPO, ALAPUZHA-688 001.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUJIN SHRI.ABDAL SALIM M.

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1 SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 001

¶11

2 ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 001

¶12

3 HEALTH INSPECTOR, REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶13

SRI AZAD BABU SC, SRI MANURAJ G.P.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.4249 OF 2020(E)

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order by which the application filed by the petitioner for correction of her date of birth was dismissed by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

¶19

“a) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to effect necessary correction of the date of birth of the petitioner in Ext.P4.

¶20

Heard Sri. Sujin S., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Azad Babu, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Manu Raj, the learned Government Pleader.

¶21

The 3^rd respondent has rejected the application for change of date of birth on the ground that the entry in the register maintained under the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the rules framed thereunder carries the same date. The petitioner has produced copy of her Secondary School Leaving Certificate, her Baptism certificate and also the copy of her passport to substantiate that her date of birth is actually 4.4.1980 and not 8.4.1980 as mentioned in

¶22

WP(C).No.4249 OF 2020(E)

¶23

¶24

Ext.P4 birth certificate.

¶25

Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths

¶26

Rules, 1999 prescribes the procedure for correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. Rule 11 is extracted below:

¶27

“11. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths -

¶28

(1) If it is reported to the Registrar that a clerical or formal error has been made in the register or if such error is otherwise noticed by him the Registrar shall enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, he shall correct the error (by correcting or cancelling the entry) as provided in section 15 and shall send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the State Government or the officer specified by it in this behalf.

¶29

(2) If any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may 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.

¶30

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) the Registrar shall make report of any correction of the kind referred to therein giving necessary details to the State Government or the officer specified in this behalf.

¶31

WP(C).No.4249 OF 2020(E)

¶32

¶33

(3) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry in the register of births and deaths has been fraudulently or improperly made, he shall make a report giving necessary details to the officer authorised by the Chief Registrar by general or special order in this behalf under section 25 and on hearing from him take necessary action in the matter.

¶34

(4) In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under this rule, intimation thereof should be sent to the permanent address of the person who has given information under section 8 or section 9.

¶35

5. Rule 11 provides that if any person asserts that any entry in

¶36

the register is erroneous, the Registrar may correct the entry in the manner prescribed under Section 15 upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the other and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the

¶37

case. In The Registrar of Births and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob and Others¹ a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the very same question and had laid down the law in the following lines.

¶38

The statutory provision providing for correction is Section 15 of the Act, which provides that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under the Act is erroneous in form or substance, he may, subject to such 1 [2011 (3) KLT 461]

¶39

WP(C).No.4249 OF 2020(E)

¶40

¶41

rules as may be made by State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation. Rule 11 provides that if a clerical or formal error made in the register is either reported or noticed by the Registrar, he shall enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any error has been made, he shall correct the error in the manner as provided therein. Sub Rule (2) provides that if any person asserts that any entry in the register of Births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in the manner as prescribed under Section 15 of the Act 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.

¶42

In view of the above, the order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting the application filed by the petitioner cannot be sustained. The petitioner may file a fresh application with a proper declaration made by her parents or other credible persons having knowledge in the manner envisaged in Rule 11 to the effect that Nisha Josey was born on 4.4.1980 and not on 8.4.1980. They shall also produce Exts.P1 to P3 before the said authority. If the same is done, the Registrar of Births and Deaths shall make necessary entries in the Register of Births and Deaths to the effect that the date of birth of Nisha Josey stands corrected as 4.4.1980. After correction as aforesaid, a certified extract from the corrected register of births shall be issued to the petitioner. The entire

¶43

WP(C).No.4249 OF 2020(E)

¶44

¶45

exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date

¶46

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

¶52

WP(C).No.4249 OF 2020(E)

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX

¶55

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGED OF THE SCHOOL CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BAPTISM CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MOUNT CARMEL CATHEDRAL ON 16.03.2007 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY ON 12.12.2019 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER FOR CORRECTION OF THE BIRTH DATED ON 18.1.2020 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS VS THOMAS JACOB AND OTHERS (2011 3 KLT 461)

Nisha Josey v. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisha Josey v. Secretary

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

Muhammed Asarudheen Vs State of Kerala

V.B.Asokan Vs Union of India

Visobh K.v., Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs the Station House Officer

Asharaf Vs the Chairperson

Vijayabhanu Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board