Allowed

B.Vasudevan, v. the Executive Officer

Madras HC1 Aug 2014WP(MD)/12095/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the rejection of his request to alter his son's name in the birth certificate. The court directed the respondent to correct the name based on a Community Certificate, school records, and a Gazette publication.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; the respondent is directed to correct the name of the petitioner's son in the birth certificate within eight weeks.

B.Vasudevan, Vs the Executive Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.08.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.12095 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶7

B.Vasudevan .. Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town Panchayath, Thiruppuvanam – 630 611, Sivagangai District.

¶10

.. Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent dated 11.07.2014 in Na.Ka.No.35/2014/A1 and to quash the same and direct the respondent to issue the corrected birth certificate of the petitioner's son, who was born on 04.02.1998 as 'Logeshwaran' instead of erstwhile name 'Arivarasan' as per the publication made in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette part VI-Section 4 of 3^rd August 2011.

¶12

For Petitioner ... Mr.B.Senthilkumar For Respondent ... Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Government Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner seeks for a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the respondent dated 11.07.2014 by which the petitioner's request for alteration of the name of the petitioner's son in the birth certificate was rejected.

¶15

2.The petitioner's son was born on 04.02.1998 and at time of registration of the birth, the petitioner's son's name was given as Arivarasan. Subsequently, the petitioner's son's name has been changed to Logeshwaran and the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thiruppuvanam, issued a Community Certificate on 08.02.2007 to the petitioner's son named as Logeshwaran. The petitioner during 2011 issued a Gazette Publication publishing that his son who was named as Arivarasan, henceforth named as Logeshwaran. At the time of the petitioner's son entered 10^th standard, he changed the name as Logeswaran and this was also recorded by the school authority and in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, it is mentioned as Logeshwaran. Thus, it is seen that the petitioner seeks for alteration of his son's name not only based on the Gazette notification, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ but as well as the other records such as Community Certificate and school records.

¶16

¶17

In such circumstances, the second respondent exercising power under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, is empowered to carry out corrections in accordance with Section 15 of the Act and while exercising such power, the registrar should satisfy himself that the entry in the birth register could be rectified or corrected, in the light of the fact that in 2007 the petitioner's son has been given Community Certificate mentioned his name as Logeshwaran. This is a pure case where the respondent should consider the petitioner's request for alteration of the name of the petitioner's son in the birth certificate.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondent to correct the name of the petitioner's son in the birth certificate as Logeshwaran instead of Arivarasan based on the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner and the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and also the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 03.08.2011 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (Per Admn)

¶21

/True copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

The Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town Panchayath, Thiruppuvanam – 630 611, Sivagangai District.

¶25

+1cc to MR.AAUIRAM K.SELVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR : 42739 +1cc to MR.B.SENTHILKUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR : 42694 Rj2

¶26

SR : 12.08.2014 : 2p/4c

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.12095 of 2014 01.08.2014

¶28

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

B.Vasudevan, v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Vasudevan, v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram City Union Vs the Superintendent

J. Sasikala Vs the Commissioner

Tmt. P. K. Kannammal Vs the District Revenue Officer

C.Krishnamoorthy, Vs the Supdt. of Police

S. Kannan, Vs the Nodel Officer

A.Suresh, Vs the Director General of Police