Bindu Joseph v. Muvattupuzha Municipality

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2014/19TH ASHADHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 15072 of 2011 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ## -------------- BINDU JOSEPH, W/O.THOMAS DOMINIC, AGED 38 YEARS, KORATHARA HOUSE, KURICHILAKODE KODANAD P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADVS.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: ----------------- ## 1. MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICPALITY REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, O/O.THE MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN-686661 ## 2. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O. ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN-686661 ## 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN-686661 R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V.ELIAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15072 of 2011 (H) ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BAPTISM CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 5.3.2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B&D 3930/2011 DATED 8.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING BOOK NO.32470 DATED 21.2.1991 OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AYAVANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ISSUED TO THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.893/2011 DATED 15.3.2011 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE, OF MR.BABU PAUL, MLA, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 5.3.2011, PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONT. - EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.15.718 DATED 16.3.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.15,718 DATED 19.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.3.2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B&D 6305/2011 DATED 26.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.4.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.B&D 7200/2011 DATED 3.5.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. WP(C).No. 15072 of 2011 (H) RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.3.2011 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, TALUK HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL, MUVATTUPUZHA. // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.** ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.15072 of 2011 ------------------------------Dated 10[th] July, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The captioned writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of Exts.P10, P11 and P15 proceedings of the second respondent and for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to issue birth certificate to the petitioner showing her date of birth as 3.12.1972 based on Ext.P2 certificate of the third respondent, Ext.P1 baptism certificate and Ext.P3 SSLC Book. The contention of the petitioner is that she was actually born on 3.12.1972 at Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Muvattupuzha. To support the said contention the petitioner has produced Ext.P1 baptism certificate and Ext.P3, the relevant page of the SSLC Book. In the birth certificate issued to the petitioner her date of birth was shown as 21.12.1971. In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application seeking correction of her date of birth as 3.12.1972. After the receipt of Ext.P4 application taking note of the fact that in Muvattupuzha Municipality birth of a girl was registered on 24.12.1971 with registration No.1814/1971 the petitioner was asked to produce the details of the birth of her brothers. According to the petitioner, her brother Binu WP(C).No.15072/2011 2 Joseph was born on 14.12.1970 and her younger bother Bibi Joseph was born on 28.5.1975. In response to Ext.P5 the petitioner produced certain documents to support the contention that her actual date of birth is 3.12.1972. In Ext.P10 which was produced pursuant to the receipt of Ext.P5 the name of the petitioner's mother was wrongly shown. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P11 certificate on 19.3.2011. In Ext.P11 the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 21.12.1971 in tune with the original entry presumably because the petitioner had failed to produce any document to convince the second respondent that her date of birth was wrongly entered in the birth register. Pursuant to the receipt of Ext.P11 the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 application reiterating her request to correct the date of birth as 3.12.1972. On receipt of Ext.P12 the second respondent issued Ext.P13 letter requiring the petitioner to surrender Ext.P11 certificate and to produce the certificate from the third respondent to prove that the birth of the petitioner was on 3.12.1972. Upon receipt of Ext.P13 the petitioner submitted Ext.P14 representation and along with the same the petitioner has produced Exts.P1 to P3 to support the claim that the date of birth was wrongly entered in the register and her actual date of birth is 3.12.1972. The impugned Ext.P15 order was issued by the second respondent thereafter. As per Ext.P15, the petitioner was required to WP(C).No.15072/2011 3 surrender the birth certificate already received by her in case she is of the view that the date of birth was wrongly entered therein. The petitioner was also required to produce a copy of the relevant register kept in the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Muvattupuzha showing the factum that her birth was on 3.12.1972. The petitioner was informed thereunder that upon production of such documents the request of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law. It is aggrieved by Exts.P10, P11 and P15 that the petitioner filed the captioned writ petition with the aforementioned prayers. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent. It is stated therein that the petitioner cannot have any grievance against Ext.P15 as the petitioner was only required thereunder to produce documents which could support her claim. In other words, since the date of birth of the petitioner was entered in the register as 24.12.1971 correction of the same as 3.12.1972 is possible only on an application carrying such a request accompanied by supporting documents. It is specifically stated therein that the correction of date of birth in the birth register kept in terms of the registration of the births and deaths in the year 2009 is impermissible based on baptism certificate. A perusal of Ext.P15 order would reveal that the petitioner WP(C).No.15072/2011 4 was required to produce the gynaec records maintained in Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Muvattupuzha as the claim of the petitioner was that her birth took place in the said hospital in the year 1972. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner had obtained a birth certificate on an earlier occasion based on an application which carried the entry of her date of birth as 21.12.1971 the petitioner was required to surrender the same. It is evident that the second respondent instructed the petitioner to produce only the documents which would support the claim of the petitioner that her date of birth is actually 3.12.1972 and that was wrongly entered in the register as 21.12.1971. How can it be said that requiring the petitioner to produce such documents is illegal or against the provisions of any law? In fact, a perusal of the provisions under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 would reveal that correction and cancellation of an entry in the register of births and deaths could be made only if the fact that it was wrongly or erroneously or improperly made was proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar. In short, the question is whether the insistence for production of such documents mentioned in Ext.P15 could be said to be a direction without any jurisdiction? As noticed hereinbefore, as per Ext.P15, the petitioner was only directed to produce the gynaec records and such other documents and also to return the birth certificate already issued WP(C).No.15072/2011 5 from that office. As noticed hereinbefore, according to the petitioner, the second respondent should not have insisted for production of such documents and in fact, the second respondent should have acted upon the baptism certificate and the affidavit filed by the petitioner to the effect that the earlier birth certificate issued to her was misplaced. In the contextual situation it is only proper to refer to the Division Bench decision of this Court in **The Registrar of Births and Deaths** v. **Thomas Jacob (2011 (3) KLT 461)** . In that case, a circular issued by the Government bearing No.B1-2815/2007 dated 20.3.2007 was considered by the Division Bench. As per the said circular, for effecting correction in an entry, where the birth was registered based on the report from the hospital, the concerned applicant should produce the gynaec register from the hospital in question. In that case the concerned applicant produced before the Panchayat concerned the baptism certificate, SSLC Book and passport to substantiate the contention that the date of birth was wrongly recorded and it is liable to be corrected. The Division Bench considered the provisions under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Rules framed thereunder prescribing the manner in which the application for correction has to be made. It was observed that it is the settled position of law that the prescriptions in a statutory rule could not be modified by WP(C).No.15072/2011 6 an executive order and if a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner alone. Accordingly, it was held therein that the rule does not require any report from the hospital as is insisted by the Registrar of Births and Deaths in the circular and therefore, the insistence for the production of a report from the hospital, which is defunct, in the facts of that case, is a requirement which is not only illegal but also impossible for compliance and therefore, the ultimate result would be deprivation of his statutory right to get the mistake corrected. In this case, the petitioner cannot have a case that the hospital is a defunct one as even according to the petitioner, her birth took place in Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Muvattupuzha. There is no case for the petitioner that such records are not available. At the same time, when the rule does not insist for production of such report from a hospital the authority cannot insist for production of such documents. Nonetheless, as part of the enquiry which is legally to be conducted by the Registrar on receipt of such an application it would be open to the Registrar to verify such documents as well, in accordance with law. In fact, as per Ext.P15, the application for correction of date of birth was not rejected and the petitioner was asked only to produce certain documents. In the light of the decision in **Thomas Jacob's** case (supra) insistence for production of the gynaec records by the petitioner WP(C).No.15072/2011 7 cannot be sustained. But, as stated earlier, that can be verified as part of the enquiry in case the second respondent is having any doubt over the genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioner to support her contention for correction of the date of birth. In this case, evidently the petitioner has produced the relevant page of SSLC Book which can be relied on. At the same time, there can be no doubt that the baptism certificate cannot be taken as foundation for correction of the date of birth. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner, in case it is still pending before the second respondent in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS