Mrs.Bismitha Mary John vs The Chief Registrar Of Birth And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5410 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.22823 OF 2020(C)


PETITIONER:

                MRS.BISMITHA MARY JOHN
                AGED 35 YEARS
                NEDIYATH PUTHEN VEEDU, KARUVATTA P.O.,
                REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
                SRI.K.O.YOHANNAN, NEDIYATH PUTHEN VEEDU,
                KARUVATTA P.O., KARUVATTA, PIN-690 517

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE
                SRI.M.A.PRABHU

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE CHIEF REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH/PANCHAYATH
                DIRECTOR
                PANCHAYATH DIRECTORATE,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001

      2         THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH/SECRETARY
                KARUVATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARUVATTA P.O.,
                KARUVATTA, PIN-690 517

                R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN

OTHER PRESENT:

                SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).22823/2020
                                      2




                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner herein has applied for a correction of date of birth in the

Register maintained by the Registrar of Birth and Death/second

respondent. Ext.P3 is the application. It was rejected by Ext.P4 order

holding that, there is no provision under the Act or Rules for correction of

the date of birth.

2. The above reason given by the authority is patently wrong in

so far as the authority is enabled by Section 15 and Rule 11 of the

Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 to conduct enquiry and pass

orders on the same. Having considered it, without going into the merits

of the application, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P4 directing the second

respondent to pass appropriate orders, after giving a reasonable

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It was submitted by the

learned counsel for the second respondent that the application was not in

proper form. Accordingly, petitioner will be free to file a modified

application in accordance with the Rules and such application shall also

be considered along with Ext.P3. Such orders shall be passed as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ Petition is allowed.

Sd/-

                                                 SUNIL THOMAS

Sbna                                                 JUDGE
 W.P(C).22823/2020





                         APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           A TRUE COPY OF THE BAPTISM CERTIFICATE OF
                     THE PETITIONER DATED 01/08/2011

EXHIBIT P2           THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED BY

THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20/7/2020

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23/1/2020 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/01/2020