(2015) 382 KLW 721
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
W.P.(C)No.27441 of 2014
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2014
PETITIONERS
K.K. KURIAN AND ANR.
BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENT
SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS PAMPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PAMPADY P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686502.
R BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN, SC
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are the parents of Reema Kurian who was born on 04.04.1978 at their home. According to the petitioners, somebody from the house of the petitioners had reported the birth of their daughter to the respondents. The entry made on the basis of such information in the Birth Register is to the effect that their daughter was born on 06.04.1978. According to the petitioners, Ext.P1 Baptism Certificate, Ext.P2 School Certificate, Ext.P3 Transcript and Ext.P4 Passport show that the date of birth of their daughter is 04.04.1978. Therefore, the petitioners submitted an application for correction of the date of birth. The said application has been rejected by Ext.P6. The petitioners have filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P6.
2. Adv.Sri.George Sebastian appears for the respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed. According to the counsel, the birth of the petitioners' daughter was registered on 18.04.1978. The petitioners had obtained a certified extract of the Birth Register in the year 1981. However, they never sought for any correction alleging that there was any error in the entries. Subsequently, they had submitted two separate applications, one seeking correction of the name of the mother and other seeking correction of the spelling of the name of their daughter. The corrections were allowed and duly carried out. It was thereafter that the present application was preferred. According to the counsel, the application is not made by the daughter. Admittedly, the daughter is a major. Therefore, in the event of the petitioner raising objections to the correction, further problems would be caused. Apart from the above, it is pointed out that, no documents contemporaneous to the birth of the daughter of the petitioners was produced. The conditions stipulated by
Rule 11(2) of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999
('the Rules' for short) have also not been satisfied. It is for the said reason that the application was rejected.
3. Heard. With respect to the contention that the application has not been preferred by the person whose name has been entered in the Birth Register, counsel for the petitioner submits that, the application can be preferred by “any person”. My attention is drawn to the
Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969
('the Act' for short) to point out that, there is no stipulation in the said provision that the applicant should be the person whose date of birth is sought to be corrected. Rule 11 of the Rules also refers only to “any person”. It is in the said manner that the provision has been interpreted and understood by a Division Bench of this Court in
Registrar of Births and Deaths and Others v. K.D. Pathrose and Others [2007 (1) KHC 971]
also. Paragraph 5 of the judgment reads as follows :
“We are of the view in a case where application is preferred seeking correction of date of birth the rule which is applicable is not sub-rule (4) of R.11. When a person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance the provision which is applicable is sub-rule (2) of R.11. If any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, he has to submit a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and also to establish his case by furnishing true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. The Registrar may then carry out the correction in the date of birth in the manner prescribed in S.15 read with sub-rule (2) of R.11. Sub-rule (1) of R.11 deals with correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. Sub-rule (4) of R.11 states that if the Registrar is satisfied that any entry in the register of births and deaths has been fraudulently or improperly made the Chief Registrar can take action in the matter.”
4. However, as rightly contended by the counsel for the respondent, in the present case what is involved is a correction of the entry, in substance. In such cases, Rule 11(2) stipulates that a person who seeks the correction should produce a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and the true facts of the case. Such declaration has to be made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. The words “credible persons” indicate that, such persons should be independent persons having no interest in the subject matter. Therefore, they cannot be the petitioners who are the persons who have submitted the application for correction. They are obviously interested in the outcome or favourable consideration of their application. The declaration contemplated cannot be those of interested persons. The declaration has necessarily to be made by two independent persons who have knowledge of the facts of the case. The application submitted by the petitioner, Ext.P5 is not supported by any such declaration. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity with Ext.P6 order by which the application has been rejected.
In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to prefer a separate application, complying with the stipulations contained in the Act and the Rules. Needless to observe that, if such an application is submitted, the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, expeditiously, and in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV