2025:KER:26219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 9802 OF 2025 PETITIONER: JAYAPRAKAS NARAYANAN V.N., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. K. NARAYANAN NAIR, VIJAYA VILASOM, VARIKKAMKUNNU P.O., VADAKARA, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 605. BY ADVS. K.JAJU BABU (SR.) M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI BRIJESH MOHAN SACHIN RAMESH AISHWARYA SATHEESAN MANIKANTAN S.KANDATHIL POOJA K. SREELAKSHMI S.N. RESPONDENTS: 1 THE CHIEF REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS/ JOINT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS,KERALA PRINCIPAL DIRECTORATE, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 003. 2 THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, VELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 609. BY ADVS. JITHIN BOSE (SC) AMEER SALIM V.T.LITHA(K/278/2006) K.R.MONISHA(K/915/2013) M.B.SOORI(K/310/2015) P.S.APPU, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:26219 WP(C) 9802/2025 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that the application filed by the petitioner for correction of the Date of Birth in his birth certificate (Ext.P3) issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Velloor Grama Panchayat, has been rejected by Ext.P8, stating that since the details of the birth of the petitioner were recorded in the register as early as on 30-07-1996 as Register No.292/1966, the claim of the petitioner for correction of date of birth cannot be considered. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been living in France from the year 1999 onwards, and in all other records of the petitioner, including Ext.P1 SSLC book and Ext.P4 Passport, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 22-05-1966, whereas in Ext.P3 birth certificate, it is recorded as 24-07-1966. It is submitted that going by the law laid down by the Division Bench of 2025:KER:26219 WP(C) 9802/2025 3 this Court in Prakash Francis Manjaly v. Secretary; 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 10470, as also in Reshmi Rajan v. The Registrar of Births and Deaths, Chengannoor Municipality (judgment dated 06-09-2024 in W.A.No.1369/2024), the request of the petitioner cannot be rejected. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also. 3. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Prakash Francis Manjaly (supra), this writ petition is only to be allowed. In Prakash Francis Manjaly (supra) this Court held as follows: “15. Main ground of rejection is that birth extract was corrected once on 14.12.2019 as per school records, and therefore, further correction 2025:KER:26219 WP(C) 9802/2025 4 in the birth extract cannot be allowed. 16. Going through the relevant statutory provisions extracted supra, we do not find any restriction in the number of corrections to be made in the Register of Births and Deaths, as the case may be, if the request is supported by bona fide records. 17. In the case on hand, the request is duly supported by the entries in the passport and Gazette notification issued by the Government of Kerala, wherein the name of the appellant is shown as “Prakash Francis Manjaly”. The request of the appellant is only to add the house name “Manjaly” along with his name. Statute provides for correction of date of birth or death respectively, subject to the conditions set forth in the provisions. We do not find that the request of the appellant falls within any one of the objectionable conditions. 18. In such a view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of rejection vide impugned letter dated 29.11.2019 requires to be interfered with. So also, the decision of the writ court, directing the appellant to approach the civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the reason that House name is already mentioned in the passport and in the Gazette Notification. “ 2025:KER:26219 WP(C) 9802/2025 5 Here also, apart from the fact that the details as recorded in Ext.P3 birth certificate were so recorded as Register No.292/1966, no other reason is stated in Ext.P8 to reject the request of the petitioner. Therefore, following the law laid down in Prakash Francis Manjaly (supra), Ext.P8 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to correct the Date of Birth of the petitioner in tune with Exts.P1 and P4 ( SSLC book and Passport), and issue a corrected birth certificate to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE ats 2025:KER:26219 WP(C) 9802/2025 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9802/2025 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES IN FRENCH LANGUAGE ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 5-2-2024. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT VIDE NO.P5013380 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENT PERMIT ISSUED BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27- 1-2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 27-1-2025. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.400474/CRCB02/GPO/ 2025/402/(1) DATED 1-3-2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 24-8-2023 IN WP(C)NO.27429/23.