Disposed

Lijo.a.L v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jul 2024WP(C)/31657/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought correction of his date of birth in the birth register from 04.12.1980 to 05.12.1980; the Municipality had directed him to cure defects in his application. The court held that copies of the SSLC certificate, driving licence and passport cannot justify exercise of statutory power under Section 15 read with Rule 11, declined to interfere with Ext.P1 but granted liberty to produce sa

What the court decided

AI extract

Lijo.a.L Vs the State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 31657 OF 2016

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

LIJO.A.L, AGED 35,S/O A.O.LAZAR, AINIKKAL HOUSE,
KUTTIKKAD, THRISSUR DIST.
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM - 695 001

¶9

2 CHIEF REGISTRAR, DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,MUSEAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

3 MUNICIPAL SECRETARY CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY,THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS,OFFIE OF CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY,THRISSUR DIST- 680001

¶11

4 HEALTH INSPECTOR GRADE-I, THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS,CHALAKUDY, MUNICIPALITY, OFFIE OF CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR DIST- 680001 BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR

¶12

SMT. RESHMI K.M.- SR.GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.31657/2016

: 2 :

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims that his date of birth recorded in the register of births maintained by the 4^th respondent Municipality is incorrect. As per the records, it is 04.12.1980 whereas the date of birth is 05.12.1980. Accordingly, he made an application for the correction of the date of birth in the register maintained by the 4^th respondent. However, by Ext.P1 dated 30.08.2016, the 4^th respondent Municipality directed the petitioner to cure the defect which is noted in the said application. It is challenging Ext.P1 that the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition.

¶18

I have heard Sri. Sreekumar G Chelur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.P. Asok Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the Municipality.

¶19

I have considered the rival submissions raised

¶20

across the bar.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per Exts.P2 to P4 documents it can be clearly

¶22

WP(C) No.31657/2016 : 3 :

¶23

evidenced that the date of birth of the petitioner is 05.12.1980 and therefore the 4^th respondent ought to have conducted a proper inquiry and then proceeded with the application. He relies on the judgment passed by this Court in Chalakkudy Municipality v. Minor Malavika [2009 (4) KLT 714]. Therefore, in the absence of such an inquiry, Ext.P1 cannot be justified, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

However, on the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent submitted that as per the records maintained by the municipality the date of birth is 04.12.1980 which has been recorded as per the details which were procured from the hospital where the birth of the petitioner occurred. The learned counsel further pointed out that in terms of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that the entry of a birth or a death in the register kept under this Act is erroneous in form or substance. Reference is also made to Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1969 to point out that the

¶25

WP(C) No.31657/2016

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

Registrar can, in a case of clerical or formal error in the register can make such inquiry and if it is satisfied that the error has occurred correct.

¶28

According to the learned counsel, on such inquiry it has been found that the date of birth recorded is 04.12.1980 and under these circumstances, Ext.P1 has been issued and therefore prayed that this writ petition may be dismissed.

¶29

The point that arises for consideration is as to whether a direction could be issued to the 4^th respondent based on Exts.P2, P3 and P4 series of documents which, according to the petitioner evidences the date of birth as 05.12.1980. It is pertinent to note that the entry in the register of births and deaths maintained by the 4^th respondent is entered as per the information received by the concerned office. Ext.P2 is the copy of the SSLC certificate, Ext.P3 is the copy of the driving licence and Ext.P4 is the copy of the passport. The entry made with regard to the date of birth in these documents cannot have any relevance for the Registrar to exercise statutory powers conferred under Section 15 of the

¶30

WP(C) No.31657/2016

¶31

: 5 :

¶32

Act read with Rule 11 of Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1969. However, it is always open for the petitioner to produce such evidence to the satisfaction of the 4^th respondent to prove that the date of birth of the petitioner is in fact 05.12.1980 and not 04.12.1980. On production of such evidence, necessarily it is for the Registrar to take an appropriate decision on the evidence so produced.

¶33

In the result, this Court finds that no interference required in Ext.P1. However, it will suffice the cause, if the petitioner is granted liberty to produce such evidence before the 4^th respondent to show that his date of birth is 05.12.1980 and on production of such evidence, the Registrar shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶34

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

EASWARAN S. JUDGE

ncd

WP(C) No.31657/2016

: 6 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31657/2016

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBITP1TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30-08-2016
EXHIBITP2A TRUE COPY OF THE SCHOOL CERTIFICATE
OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26-3-1996
EXHIBITP3A RUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 30-7-2009
EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE
PETITIONER BEARING NO.K9306277 DATED
25-02-2013
EXHBITP5A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 16-2-2001
EXHIBITP6A TRUE COPY OF THE PAN CARD ISSUED IN
THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIPT P7A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED
BY NORKA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER

Lijo.a.L v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Lijo.a.L v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajagopalan Nair Vs Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery)

Bexy Reji Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.N.Krishnankutty Vs Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board

Vinod E.V. Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Muhammed Ashraf Vs the Taliparamba Municipality

Shifa Shihabudeen Vs the Insurance Ombudsman