Vibin Paul s/o N.R. Paul v Health Inspector, Registrar of Births & Deaths, Kodungallur Municipality; Kodungallur Municipality

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2014-06-11
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of; directions to reconsider Ext.P6 in light of Ext.P3, after proper enquiry, to pass appropriate orders within two weeks; orders to be issued expeditiously in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vibin Paul s/o N.R. Paul
Nithin Paul

Respondents

Health Inspector
The Registrar of Births & Deaths, Kodungallur Municipality
Kodungallur Municipality

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sree Sheejo Chacko
• Sangeeth C. Subramanian
• P. Jinish Paul

Counsels for Respondents

• Babu Karukapadath
• M. A. Vaheeda Babu
• K. Noushad
• Kandampully Rahul
• Mithun Baby John

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, Vibin Paul and his sibling Nithin Paul, both sought to suffix their father’s name to their own, by correcting entries in official records. They filed two writ petitions, WP(C). Nos. 10117 and 10129 of 2014, challenging rejection of their applications Ext.P6 to amend birth entries to reflect the father’s name, Ext.P7 being the reasoned rejection under the purported constraint of circular No. 35845/R.D.3/2011/LSGD dated 1.2.2012. The petitioners argued that the circular has to be read in light of school records and a proper enquiry, and that the birth certificate entries do not tally with the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (Ext.P3). In W.P.(C).10117, the applicant’s birth entry read Vibin N.P while the school record shows Vibin Paul; similarly, in 10129 the birth entry read Nithin N.P with Nithin Paul in the school record. The court found that the orders of rejection were not properly considered and that the circular does not categorically prohibit a second correction when school records justify it. Relying on Shipna Jose v. Registrar, the court directed reconsideration after proper enquiry, consideration of Ext.P3, and to pass appropriate orders within two weeks. The petitions were disposed of accordingly, directing expeditious reconsideration in accordance with law.

Provisions of Law Cited

Circular No.35845/R.D.3/2011/LSGD dated 1.2.2012

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the impugned rejection orders were a misreading of the circular and that correction of names could be allowed if the school records (Ext.P3) align with the birth entries after a proper enquiry. They urged the court to permit second correction where school records indicate the need for consistency, and to reconsider Ext.P6 in light of Ext.P3.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the circular bars repeated corrections and that once corrected, a second correction is impermissible. They maintained reliance on circular 1.2.2012 to reject Ext.P6 without a fresh enquiry, emphasizing consistency and integrity of vital records.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shipna Jose v. Registrar	2010(2) KLT 978	Positive	Court relied on Shipna Jose to permit correction upon proper enquiry and alignment with school records, indicating that a second correction is not categorically barred by the circular when justified.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/21ST JYAISHTA, 1936 WP(C).No. 10117 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ VIBIN PAUL S/O.N.R.PAUL, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE NADAVARAMBU, KOLLAMKUNNU. BY ADVS.SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO SRI.SANGEETH C. SUBRAMANIAN SRI.P.JINISH PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- ## 1. HEALTH INSPECTOR THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY. ## 2. KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY KODUNGALLUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD R2 BY ADV. SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL R2 BY ADV. SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2014, ALONG WITH WPC. 10129/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10117 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------- EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH DATED 23-4-1999. - EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 16-6-2007 ISSUED BY HEALTH INSPECTOR AND REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY. - EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. - EXT.P4 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL. - EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25-02-2013 FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24-01-2014 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ----------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== W.P.(C). Nos.10117 & 10129 OF 2014 ==========================** Dated this the 11[th] day of June, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are siblings and they wanted to suffix the name of their father to their names and for that purpose, they submitted Ext.P6 (Ext.P6 in both writ petitions), before the Secretary of the second respondent. The said applications were rejected as per Ext.P7 (Ext.P7 in both writ petitions) assigning the reason that since their names were already corrected once, at their instance, correction for a second time is impermissible in the light of circular No.35845/R.D.3/2011/LSGD dated 1.2.2012. It is aggrieved by the said order of rejection that the captioned writ petitions have been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are unsustainable in the light of the decision of this Court in **Shipna Jose v. Registrar [2010(2) KLT 978].** **W.P.(C).10117 & 10129/14** 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. A scanning of the averments in these writ petitions would reveal that the petitioners seek correction of their names as aforesaid. Evidently, the entry in the birth certificate does not tally with the entry in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioners produced as Ext.P3 in both the writ petitions. A perusal of the same would reveal that in the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.10117 of 2014, his name was entered therein as 'Vibin Paul' not as 'Vibin N.P'. In W.P.(C).No.10129 of 2014, the name of the petitioner was entered as 'Nithin Paul' and not as 'Nithin N.P'. In the birth register, the name of the petitioner in the former writ petition was entered as Vibin N.P and the name of the petitioner in the latter writ petition as Nithin N.P. As noticed hereinbefore, their applications for correction of names were rejected as per Ext.P7 assigning the reason that it is impermissible in the light of circular dated 1.2.2012. I am of the view that the said applications **W.P.(C).10117 & 10129/14** 3 were rejected without proper application of mind after taking into account the relevant circular dated 1.2.2012. It is only on account of the wrong understanding of the purport of the circular dated 1.2.2012 that the said applications came to be rejected. A perusal of the same would reveal that if the school records are produced and an application is made to correct the entry of the name in the birth register in tune with the entry in the school records, after a proper enquiry it could be granted if it is found appropriate to be corrected. There is no stipulation in the circular dated 1.2.2012 that if the correction of the name is effected once it could not be done for a second time. When the Government issued a circular and in terms of the said circular, an application for correction of the name is permissible, the respondents cannot reject an application for correction of the name assigning a non-existent reason in the relevant circular. In short, I am of the view that the applications submitted by the petitioners were rejected without a proper consideration of the application in the light of circular dated 1.2.2012. In such **W.P.(C).10117 & 10129/14** 4 circumstances, the applications submitted by the petitioners viz., Ext.P6, in both the writ petitions, requires a reconsideration at the hands of the respondents. Needless to say that while considering the same, the respondents shall look into Ext.P3 (in both writ petitions) certificates. After perusing the said school records and if necessary, after conducting an enquiry, the applications shall be taken up for reconsideration and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon. This shall be done expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **.** Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **W.P.(C).10117 & 10129/14** 5 ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** ## **JUDGMENT** **W.P.(C).10117 & 10129/14** 6 **September, 2010**