Antony Dominic, J.@mdash1st respondent in WP(C) No.22222/2010 is the appellant.
2. 1st respondent herein is the father of Mr. Joshwa Thomas Jacob, who was born at Pulinkunnu on 1/9/1981. Based on the report of birth made by Dr.Murali Krishnan of St. Reethas Hospital, his date of birth was registered by the appellant. According to the 1st respondent, for the purpose of applying for a green card in the United States of America, his son wanted a birth certificate from the appellant, and therefore, on an application made by him, a birth certificate was issued. From the certificate, it was found that the name was recorded as Joseph Thomas Jacob and the date of birth was wrongly recorded as 8.9.1981.
3. Thereupon, on behalf of his son, 1st respondent submitted Ext.P5 application to the appellant requesting him to correct the date of birth from 8/9/1981 to 1/9/1981. He also applied for correction of the name of his son from Joseph Thomas Jacob to Joshwa Thomas Jacob. By Ext.P7 order, the appellant allowed correction of name but declined to correct the date of birth. That order was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.3154/2010 and by Ext.P8 judgment, this Court directed reconsideration of the application duly adverting to the documents produced by the 1st respondent. It was directed that fresh orders will be passed within 4 weeks. It is to be mentioned here that the documents which were produced by the 1st respondent to substantiate his claim were Ext.P1 baptism certificate, Ext.P2 SSLC Book and Ext.P3 copy of the passport of his son, which showed his son''s date of birth as 1/9/1981.
4. Pursuant to the directions in Ext.P8 judgment, the appellant reconsidered the request and Ext.P11 order was issued rejecting the application for correction of date of birth. The relevant portion of the translated copy of Ext.P11 reads as under:-
As per the order of the Hon''ble High Court cited as ref.1 above it was requested before the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths for permission to correct the date of birth of Joshwa Jacob T vide ref no.2 above. But the Chief Registrar had instructed to take decision after conducting an enquiry in the hospital as per ref (3) cited above. Enquiry regarding this was conducted earlier. The report of the birth taken place in St. Reethas Hospital was made by Dr.Murali Krishnan of the said hospital. As per the circular No.B 2815/2007 dated 20.3.2007 of the Director of Panchayath/Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths it was required that a letter from the hospital regarding correction of its report along with copy of the gynec register recording the correction of the date was to be obtained. But the said hospital is not functioning now. Hence it is not possible to obtain the records and make necessary correction in the certificate of birth and it is informed accordingly.
5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances the 1st respondent filed the writ petition with the following prayers:-
(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P11.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to make correction of date of birth in the birth register of the petitioner''s son Joshwa Thomas Jacob as 1/9/1981 and issue certificate with corrected name and date of birth to the petitioner.
6. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:-
5. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P11 and direct that in the event of the petitioner and his wife (parents of Sri.Joshwa Thomas Jacob) submitting a joint declaration in the form of an affidavit attested by a notary to the effect that their son, Joshwa Thomas Jacob, was born on 1.9.1981 and not on 8.9.1981, the Registrar of Births and Deaths shall make necessary entries to be made in the Register of Births and Deaths to the effect that the date of birth of Joshwa Thomas Jacob stands corrected as 1.9.1981 and shall thereafter issued a certified extract from the corrected Register of Births to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date on which the petitioner and his wife submit the joint declaration.
7. It is aggrieved by the above judgment, the 1st respondent in the writ petition has filed this appeal.
8. We have heard the counsel for the appellant, counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the correction of date of birth is governed by the provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. It is stated that though in appropriate cases, it was open to the appellant to correct the date of birth, such correction can only be in terms of the statutory provisions. According to the appellant, the 3rd respondent has issued circular No.B1-2815/2007 dated 20/3/2007 which provided that in cases where birth has been registered on the basis of report from a hospital, for effecting any correction, a letter from the hospital along with a copy of the gynec register is required to be obtained. It is stated that such documents were not produced by the 1st respondent and therefore the learned Judge could not have directed correction of date of birth. According to the counsel for the appellant, the position canvassed by him is fully covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in
9. We have considered the submission made in the light of the pleadings and the material available before us. As held by this Court in
10. The statutory provision providing for correction is Section 15 of the Act, which provides that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under the Act is erroneous in form or substance, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entires may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation. Rule 11 provides that if a clerical or formal error made in the register is either reported or noticed by the Registrar, he shall enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any error has been made, he shall correct the error in the manner as provided therein. Sub Rule (2) provides that if any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in the manner as prescribed u/s 15 of the Act upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. Sub Rules 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 11 may not be relevant for the purpose of this judgment.
11. In this case, it is the case of the 1st respondent that a mistake has been committed in recording the date of birth of his son Sri. Joshwa Thomas Jacob. To substantiate his case, he has produced Ext.P1 baptism certificate, Ext.P2 SSLC Book and Ext.P3 passport. Inspite of it, taking note of the requirements of Rule 11 (2), the learned Judge directed the 1st respondent and his wife, being the parents of Sri.Joshwa Thomas Jacob, to submit a declaration in the form of an affidavit. The appellant has no case that the persons who are ordered to be given affidavits are not credible persons as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Rules. On the other hand, in Ext.P11, the only insistence of the appellant is that a report should be made by the hospital on whose report the birth was registered. A reading of Ext.P11 also shows that even according to the appellant, the Hospital is not functioning now. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to comply with the requirements of the circular relied on by the appellant. That apart, Section 15 of the Act and Rule 11 lays down the manner in which an application for correction is to be made. It is the settled position of law that the prescriptions in a statutory rule cannot be modified by an executive order and if a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in that manner alone. Rule does not require any report from the hospital as is insisted by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths in the circular, and therefore, the insistence on the production of a report from the hospital, which is defunct, in the facts of this case, is a requirement which is not only illegal but also impossible of compliance and the net result would be that the respondent is deprived of his statutory right to get the mistake corrected. Therefore, in our view, the learned Judge has rightly issued the directions about the manner in which declarations are to be made and the correction is to be carried out.
12. As far as the judgment in
13. We do not find any illegality in the judgment under appeal.
Writ appeal is only to be dismissed and we do so.
