Dismissed

Minor. Eesha Kumar v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC12 Aug 2011WP/6273/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the Registrar's refusal to update a child's birth certificate with parents' names changed via Gazette notification. The Court held Section 15 permits correction only for errors in form or substance, not post-registration name changes. The Court directed the parents to produce the Gazette notification alongside the certificate.

What did the court decide?

Doctrine that parents must produce Gazette notification with the birth certificate to avail citizenship benefits.

Minor. Eesha Kumar Vs the Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:12.08.2011

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P. No. 6273 of 2011

¶6

Eesha Kumar (Minor) .. Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.The Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, West Zone, Coimbatore.

¶9

2.The Registrar of Birth and Deaths Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore. .. Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to incorporate the name of the petitioner's parents, viz., name of father as Kumar Palanisamy and Name of mother as Vijayalakshmi Ponmudi, in the birth certificate issued on 08.12.2009, by the second respondent and issue a birth certificate afresh to the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nagasundaram For Respondents : Mr.R.Sivakumar O R D E R

¶12

By consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

¶13

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

¶14

The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to incorporate the name of the petitioner's parents, namely, Kumar Palanisamy and Vijayalakshmi Ponmudi, in the birth certificate issued on 08.12.2009, and issue a fresh birth certificate.

¶15

The petitioner was born on 22.01.2006, at Coimbatore and his birth was registered and a birth certificate was issued by the second respondent on 09.01.2007. The minor petitioner's father applied for citizenship with the Government of Canada and the names of the minor

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

petitioner, his father and mother were changed by making a Gazette notification to the following effect:-

¶18

i)P.Kumar as Kumar Palanisamy

¶19

ii)Vijayalakshmi as Vijayalakshmi Ponmudi and iii)K.Eesha as Eesha Kumar

¶20

The above change was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 22.04.2009. It appears that based on such Gazette notification, the petitioner applied for change of name in the birth certificate by an application dated 11.08.2009. This request was not considered by the second respondent and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.22039 of 2009. This Court by order dated 29.10.2009, directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.08.2009, within a period of four weeks. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the second respondent by order dated 08.12.2009, carried out the necessary change in the birth certificate, insofar as the minor petitioner is concerned, but however left the names of his father and mother unchanged. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for the aforementioned relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in 2001 (4) CTC 399, [B.Shambu Kumar vs. M/s.Raghvendra Steels Ltd. on the evidentiary value of Gazette notification.

¶21

Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, deals with correction or cancellation of the entry in register of births and deaths. For better appreciation, the provision is quoted below:-

¶22

Correction or Cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths:-

¶23

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 this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the 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, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.

¶24

In terms of the power conferred under Section 15, the Registrar if satisfied that any entry of birth or death in the register kept by him is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, the registrar may subject to the rules, made by the State Government may correct the error or cancel the entry by

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry.

¶27

Thus the statue is very clear that the correction or cancellation of an entry could be made in the margin of the register in cases where the recording is either erroneous in form or substance or has been fraudulently or improperly made. However, even in such cases, it is the subjective satisfaction of the registrar concerned. Therefore, when the statue prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in such manner only and not in any other manner. In view of the clear prescription, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the respondent. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶28

As noticed above, the request of change of name insofar as the minor petitioner has been carried out by the second respondent and a fresh certificate has also been issued. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent corporation placed before this Court, a clarification issued by the department to a query raised as to whether the changes made in the names of father/mother through gazette notification or otherwise subsequent to the date of registration of birth of the child could be incorporated in the register. It has been clarified that as such changes in the names are not covered under Section 15 of the Act and these need not be incorporated in the birth certificate. Therefore, the petitioner cannot insist upon the respondents to incorporate the change of names of his parents in his birth certificate, which admittedly was effected after the date of registration of the birth of the minor petitioner.

¶29

However, the petitioner's parents have expressed a difficulty, while applying for citizenship in a foreign country. It is in admitted fact that the names of the petitioner's parents have been changed from P.Kumar to Kumar Palanisamy and Vijayalakshmi to Vijayalakshmi Ponmudi. These changes have been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 10.02.2009, and 20.04.2009, respectively. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that a Gazettee is admissible in evidence, the facts stated in the Gazette can be looked into to discover facts/materials. A Gazette notification is a public document any they can be taken judicial notice of at any time by the Courts concerned. Therefore, the petitioner's parents could produce the Gazette notification, wherein their changed name has been notified along with the petitioner's birth certificate and there is no legal bar for any authority to take note of the entries in the Gazette notification for the purpose of ascertaining the names of the petitioner's parents. If such procedure is adopted, the grievance of the petitioner would stand redressed.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

In view of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶32

Sd/
Asst. Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar
pbn
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner,
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation,
West Zone, Coimbatore.
2.The Registrar of Birth and Deaths
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation,
Coimbatore.
1 cc To Mr.P.Nagasundaram, Advocate, SR.49982.
W.P. No. 6273 of 2011
MRD(CO)
RVL 16.08.2011

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Minor. Eesha Kumar v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor. Eesha Kumar v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

K. Srinivasan Vs the Chairman & Managing

Artisan Residence Welfare Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

M.Kalaiselvan Vs Deputy Secretary

Jinos Basheer, Vs Government of Puducherry

The Tamilnadu Housing Board Vs Mrs Uma Maheswari

Miss. S.Hannah Dotris, Vs Assistant General Manager