Allowed

Vignesh .P v. The Commissioner

Madras HC20 Apr 2021WP(MD)/134/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a refusal notice issued by the Commissioner, Periyakulam Municipality, and the Registrar, Birth & Death, for incorporating his gazetted name change into his birth certificate. Relying on prior judgments where similar reliefs were granted, the High Court of Madras quashed the refusal order and directed the issuance of a fresh birth certificate.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent was directed to incorporate the name 'Vignesh' in the birth certificate and issue a fresh birth certificate within four weeks.

Vignesh .P Vs The Commissioner — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.134 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.04.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.(MD)No.134 of 2021

Vignesh

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Periyakulam Municipality, Periyakulam.

¶8

2.The Registrar, Birth & Death, Periyakulam Municpal Office, Periyakulam.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records of the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.1338/H1/dated 09.10.2020 and quash it as illegal and also direct the 1^st respondent to enter the present name of the petitioner (Vignesh) as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 17.12.2014 and issue a fresh birth certificate to the petitioner within a stipulated time.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Madhu

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.Karupasamy Pandian.

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal notice issued by the first respondent dated 09.10.2020 and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to issue a fresh birth certificate by incorporating the changed name of the petitioner.

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that he was born on 04.02.1992 and his name was entered in the birth certificate as 'Vignesh Kumar'. When the petitioner was admitted in the school, his name was given as 'Vignesh' and hence, all the other records reflected the name of the petitioner as 'Vignesh'. The petitioner, after completion of the studies, while producing his certificates for verification, by his employer was told that the name in the birth certificate defers from the one found in the other records.

¶17

The petitioner, thereafter, undertook the process of change of name from 'Vignesh Kumar' to 'Vignesh' and the same was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 17.12.2014. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1/5

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.134 of 2021

¶20

petitioner thereafter, made a representation to the first respondent seeking for issuance of birth certificate by incorporating the name of the petitioner as 'Vignesh'.

¶21

The first respondent, through the impugned refusal letter dated 09.10.2020, has refused to incorporate the changed name by citing Section 15 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the concerned Rules. The first respondent has taken a stand that only corrections can be carried out in the birth certificate and the name cannot be changed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.

¶22

Heard Mr.J.Madhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Karupasamy Pandian, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶23

The issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.6626 of 2019, dated 10.09.2020. The relevant portions in the order are extracted hereunder:

¶24

“5.Though I find the submission of the learned standing counsel to be persuasive, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to my attention to the order dated 07.01.2016 made in W.P.No.30766 of 2015 (S.K.Syed Rafiullah V. The District Collector and Another). The learned Judge in the said order had held as follows:-

¶25

5.In the case of A.James V. The Commissioner of Kodaikanal Municipality, an issue arose as to whether the name of the person could be corrected in the Birth Certificate by correcting a mistake which according to the petitioner therein was due to inadvertence. The Madurai Bench of this Court, after taking into consideration of the earlier order passed in W.P.No.296 of 2007, dated 14.06.2007, directed the authorities to effect the correction. The operative portion of the order in W.P.(MD).No.7303 of 2014 dated 10.06.2014, reads as follows:

¶26

"3.Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in identical matter, this Court following the judgment in W.P.No.296 of 2007, dated 14.06.2007, directed the respondents to amend the birth certificate within a specified time. Hence, following the same, a similar order has to be passed. The relevant portion of the judgment delivered by this Court in W.P.No.296 of 2007 dated 14.06.2007, reads as follows:

¶27

"3.It is a matter of fact that the claim of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner deserves to be considered since the same

¶28

2/5

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.134 of 2021

¶30

has been changed through the Gazette Publication. Under the circumstances, by granting the relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition to have his name changed in the school register, by effecting the necessary changes in the birth certificate, neither the Government nor the school authorities is going to have a serious prejudice caused to them considering the purpose of issuance of certificate as per the enactment.

¶31

4.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there are no provision to effect the same. It is not necessary that the Act should contain Rule for every aspect, particularly in matters where such amendments are not going into the root of the matter, when other things are satisfied namely, the date of birth, parents name etc. and Gazette Publication recording the change in the name of the child.

¶32

5.In the circumstances, the concerned authorities are hereby directed to effect the necessary change in the birth certificate as per the Tamil Nadu Gazette Notification and the school authority is also directed to carry out the necessary change thereon."

¶33

4.The dictum laid down in the above order, is squarely applicable to this case. In the present case also petitioner's daughter name has been published as 'Priya' in the Government Gazette. In such circumstances, there cannot be any impediment for the respondents to correct the same in the birth certificate. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the concerned respondent is directed to issue birth certificate to the petitioner's daughter who was born on 08.02.1979, and corrected as 'Priya' as per the publication made in the Government Gazette on 27.06.2012, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

¶34

6.The respondents are unable to distinguish the aforementioned decision nor pointed out as to in what manner it is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In fact, in the said case, the correction was sought for after 32 years after the petitioner was born, whereas the petitioner has come before this Court to correct the name of the petitioner's son less than two years of his birth. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused, especially when the correct name has been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and also in the Newspapers.

¶35

7.In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is

¶36

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

¶37

3/5

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.134 of 2021

¶39

allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to issue Birth Certificate to the petitioner's son, who was born on 01.11.2012 and correct the same as "R.Amanullah" as per publication made in the Government Gazette dated 09.10.2013, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”

¶40

6.In my view the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable.

¶41

7.The petitioner's original name was R.N.V.Ragavan. He was born on 24.10.1995. The birth certificate issued by the respondents says so. Later, the petitioner got his name changed as V.Balaji. It was also duly published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette, dated 30.03.2005. A copy of the same has also been enclosed in the typed set of papers. The petitioner now wants the corresponding correction to be made in the birth certificate.”

¶42

In view of the above, the present case is also squarely covered by the above order and the impugned refusal notice dated 09.10.2020, issued by the first respondent is hereby quashed and there shall be a direction to the first respondent to incorporate the name of the petitioner as 'Vignesh' in the birth certificate and issue a fresh birth certificate to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

This Writ Petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.

¶44

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶45

// True Copy //

¶46

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶47

vsm

¶48

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 Note : pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.

¶49

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

¶50

vsm

¶51

4/5

¶52

W.P.(MD)No.134 of 2021

¶53

¶54

1.The Commissioner, Periyakulam Municipality, Periyakulam.

¶55