- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:224 WP No. 29650 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 29650 OF 2025 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: 1. MR. A SALMAN KHAN S/O ARIF ULLA KHAN @ SUHAIL AHMED AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A 191, 7TH CROSS-EXAMINATION WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU 560030. 2. MR A SULAIMAN KHAN S/O ARIF ULLA KHAN @ SUHAIL AHMED AGAE ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A 191 7TH CROSS WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU 560030. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S R SREEPRASAD.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:224 WP No. 29650 of 2025 AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU 560002. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU 560 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CORRECT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATES OF THE PETITIONERS FATHER NAME AS ARIF ULLA KHAN AT SUHAIL AHMED BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.6.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:224 WP No. 29650 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners are children of Sri Arif Ulla Khan and they have sought for directions to the second respondent to correct their birth certificates to show their father's name as 'Arif Ulla Khan alias Suhail Ahmed'. The petitioners assert that they have filed their representation and also caused legal notice but to no avail. 2. Sri. S.R.Sreeprasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners, to support the petitioners' cause relying upon the birth certificates issued by the second respondent's office, submits that if the earlier certificates issued in 1992-93 mentioned the name of the petitioners' father as 'Arif Ulla Khan', the later birth certificates mention his name as 'Suhail Ahmed' and that this difference without mentioning both the names simultaneously is causing difficulties for the petitioners. The learned counsel relies upon the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:224 WP No. 29650 of 2025 decision of this Court in W.P.No.6370/2024, which is decided on 06.02.2025, to contend that the second respondent must consider an affidavit that the petitioners will file to support the case that their father is known as both 'Arif Ulla Khan' and 'Suhail Ahmed'. 3. Sri Pawan Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the second respondent can, if proved to its satisfaction that there is an error in mentioning the name of the petitioners' father, make necessary corrections. When queried on how long the second respondent would take to decide upon an application that could be filed by the petitioners after this Court's order in the present petition, the learned counsel submits that the decision will be taken within thirty [30] days from the date of receipt of such application/affidavit. 4. The provisions of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 [for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:224 WP No. 29650 of 2025 short, 'the Act'] indeed confers power in the second respondent to correct an error provided the error is demonstrated to its satisfaction with the corresponding Rule 11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 stipulating that the Registrar, if upon an enquiry is satisfied that the error is either clerical or a formal error, shall correct the error and forward a corrected extract to the concerned. 5. 5. It is seen from the annexures produced that in the birth certificates issued in 1992-93, the name of the petitioners' father is mentioned as 'Arif Ulla Khan', and in the later birth certificates, it is shown as 'Suhail Ahmed'. The petitioners are willing to place on record an affidavit to demonstrate that their father is known by both the names and this Court is of the view that the second respondent must, if an application is filed, consider the affidavit and every other material that could be available to decide - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:224 WP No. 29650 of 2025 on whether there is any error in mentioning the name of the petitioners' father and decide the same expeditiously. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to file an application with the second respondent under Section 15 of the Act within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order calling upon the second respondent to consider the same expeditiously and in any event within the next four [4] weeks. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr