Madras High Court
Pandiselvi vs The Commissioner on 21 June, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.161 of 2021
Pandiselvi v. The Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court
DATED: 21.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.161 of 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
Pandiselvi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner
Periyakulam Municipality
Periyakulam.
2.The Registrar
Birth & Death
Periyakulam Municipal Office,
Periyakulam. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire
records of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.1337/H1/dated 19.10.2020 and
quash it as illegal and also direct the 1st respondent to enter the present name
of the petitioner (PANDISELVI) as published in the Tamilnadu Government
Gazette on 17.12.2014 and issue a fresh birth certificate to the petitioner
within a stipulated time.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.161 of 2021
Pandiselvi v. The Commissioner
For Petitioner :Mr.J.Madhu
For Respondents :Mr.M.Lingadurai
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
communication of the first respondent dated 09.10.2020, wherein, the first
respondent has refused to entertain the application given by the petitioner
seeking for correction of the name of the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was born on 07.09.1993 and it
was also registered on the file of the second respondent. While registering
the birth certificate, the name of the petitioner was recorded as Vijaya Priya.
Subsequently the name of the petitioner was changed as Pandiselvi. This
name is found in all the subsequent records right from the school transfer
certificate, degree certificate, community certificate, Adhaar card and also
electoral ID card.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.161 of 2021
Pandiselvi v. The Commissioner
3. The petitioner made an application before the first respondent
seeking for the correction of the name found in the birth certificate and the
same came to be rejected through the impugned communication dated
09.10.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed
before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. In the considered view of this Court, several orders have been
passed by this Court, wherein, this Court has taken into consideration the
fact that except the birth certificate, in all the other certificates, the name is
different and therefore, this Court had directed appropriate correction to be
made in the birth certificate also. Useful reference can be made to the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.6626 of 2019, dated 10.09.2020. The
relevant portions in the order are extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.161 of 2021
Pandiselvi v. The Commissioner
“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:-
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:
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.161 of 2021
Pandiselvi v. The Commissioner
Court in W.P.No.296 of 2007 dated 14.06.2007, reads
as follows:
"3.It is a matter of fact that the claim of
the petitioner deserves to be considered since the
same 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.
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.
5.In the circumstances, the concerned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.161 of 2021
Pandiselvi v. The Commissioner
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."
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."
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.161 of 2021
Pandiselvi v. The Commissioner
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.
7.In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is 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.”
6.In my view the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable.
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.”
7. In view of the above, the present case is also squarely covered by
the above order and the impugned rejection order dated 09.10.2020 issued
by the first respondent is hereby quashed and there shall be a direction to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.161 of 2021
Pandiselvi v. The Commissioner
first respondent to incorporate the name of the petitioner as 'Pandiselvi' 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.
8. This Writ Petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.
21.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
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.
To
1.The Commissioner
Periyakulam Municipality
Periyakulam.
2.The Registrar
Birth & Death
Periyakulam Municipal Office,
Periyakulam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.161 of 2021
Pandiselvi v. The Commissioner
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
RR
W.P.(MD)No.161 of 2021
21.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
