Madras High Court
The Commissioner Cum Registrar Of Birth ... vs T.Vincent on 5 August, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
W.A.(MD)No.789 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A.(MD)No.789 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.6944 of 2019
The Commissioner Cum Registrar of Birth and Death,
Nagercoil Municipality,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Appellant
-Vs-
T.Vincent ... Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to
set aside the order dated 25.04.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.5581 of 2019 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian
For Respondent : Mr.C.Kishore
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN, J.]
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 25.04.2019 made in
W.P.(MD)No.5581 of 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The respondent / writ petitioner made an application before the
appellant to change the name of his son as V.J.Berjin instead of V.J.Bergal.
However, the appellant rejected the request of the writ petitioner, vide order dated
02.03.2017, stating that since the name of the child was published in the gazette
notification, it can be annexed with the Birth Certificate and the authorities cannot
amend the name. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed the said Writ
Petition.
3.The learned Single Judge, through the impugned order dated
25.04.2019, allowed the Writ Petition, directing the appellant herein to make
changes as set out in the petition.
4.Challenging the same, the appellant has filed this Writ Appeal.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that originally, the
hospital authorities, where the son of the respondent was born, sent a
communication to the appellant on 24.12.2012, wherein the name of the child /
son of the respondent / writ petitioner was mentioned as V.J.Vergal. Based on that
application only, the appellant issued Birth Certificate to the child of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent on 05.03.2013 mentioning the name of the child as V.J.Vergal.
Thereafter, the respondent published in the gazette notification dated 06.04.2016,
stating that the name of the son was V.J.Bergal and hereafter, his name should be
known as V.J.Berjin. Thereafter, the respondent made application before the
appellant under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969,
stating that the name of the son was V.J.Bergal and it is to be amended as
V.J.Berjin. Based on the communication from the hospital authorities, already the
name of the son of the respondent was registered as V.J.Vergal in the Birth
Certificate. Now, the petitioner has given the name of the son was V.J.Bergal and
it should be amended as V.J.Berjin. Therefore, the appellant passed the order
dated 02.03.2017, which is impugned in the Writ Petition.
6.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for
the respondent.
7.A careful perusal of the original application filed by the writ petitioner
through the Hospital authorities, where the son was born on 24.12.2012, shows
that the name of child was mentioned as V.J.Vergal. Based on that application the
appellant also issued Birth Certificate on 05.03.2013. However, the respondent,
suppressing the said fact made application under Form H(3) mentioning the name
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of his son as V.J.Bergal instead of mentioning the name as V.J.Vergal as
mentioned in the Birth Certificate. Even in the gazette notification also, he has
mentioned as V.J.Bergal and therefore, based on the Birth Certificate, the
appellant has passed an order, which was impugned in the Writ Petition.
Therefore, there is no perversity or erroneous in the order passed by the appellant
dated 02.03.2017.
8.However, the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the appellant
has passed order only based on the birth certificate issued by the authority.
Further, the Writ Court has not mentioned anything about the Birth Certificate
already issued by the appellant, which was not challenged by the respondent.
Even in the gazette notification, the name mentioned in the birth certificate was
not mentioned. In the birth certificate, the name of the son of the respondent is
mentioned as V.J.Vergal, which is not reflected in the gazette notification.
9.Therefore, under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside, accordingly, set aside.
This Writ Appeal is allowed. However, the respondent / writ petitioner is at
liberty to workout his remedy in the manner known to law. In case, the
respondent / writ petitioner files any application before the appellant, the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
shall be considered by the appellant without adopting any technicalities, within a
reasonable time. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[P.V., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]
05.08.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Yuva
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Yuva
05.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
