JUDGMENT : P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : i. “Call for the records leading to Exhibit-P9 order and issue as writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the said order; ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to take an appropriate decision on Exhibit-P1 application in accordance with Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, within a period to be determined by this Hon’ble Court. iii. Declare that the respondent is competent to correct an entry in the “Birth Register” if the same is proved as erroneous or improper, if the Registrar is satisfied with the affidavits sworn as per Rule 11(2) of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, particularly in the light of the judgment dated 6-10-2022 in W.P (C) No.31315/2022. iv. Declare that the “date of birth” of the petitioner is 1- 2-1988 and that the “place of birth” of the petitioner is Karthikapuram. v. Grant such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary, in the facts and circumstance of the case. “ [sic] 2. According to the petitioner, he was born on 1.2.1998 at Deepa Nursing Home, Karthikapuram. The petitioner's baptism name is Thomas. However, in the birth certificate, the date of birth is wrongly recorded as “9.2.1988” and the place of birth is wrongly recorded as 'Santhipuram', where the house of the petitioner was situated. According to the petitioner, the hospital is situated at Karthikapuram. The petitioner relied Exts.P2 to P8 to support his contention. The petitioner approached the local authority and the local authority corrected the name of the petitioner, but the date of birth and place of birth of the petitioner is not corrected. The petitioner challenge Ext.P9. Hence, this writ petition is filed. The petitioner also relied Exts.P10 and P11 judgments. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 01.02.1988. But, it is wrongly recorded in the birth register as 09.02.1988. The petitioner relied Exts.P2, P3 and P4 affidavits filed by the Doctor, father's sister and mother's sister. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 01.02.1988. But, it is wrongly recorded in the birth register as 09.02.1988. The petitioner relied Exts.P2, P3 and P4 affidavits filed by the Doctor, father's sister and mother's sister. The other documents relied by the petitioner are the Aadhar Card, SSLC book, passport , driving license and baptism certificate of the petitioner. The petitioner relied Exts.P10 and P11 judgments. This Court perused Exts.P10 and P11 judgment. The petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Secretary, Registrar of Births and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob and others [ 2011 (3) KHC 389 ]. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder : 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 Registrar (Births and Deaths) v. Jayakrishnan, 2003 KHC 478 : 2003 (2) KLT 701 : 2003 (1) KLJ 781 : AIR 2004 Ker. 7 . 9. We have considered the submission made in the light of the pleadings and the material available before us. 7 . 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 Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika, 2009 (4) KHC 713 : 2009 (4) KLT 714 : ILR 2009 (4) Ker. 591 : AIR 2010 Ker. 77 law does not contemplate a person to have a wrong name in the register or a mistaken identity in the register or to have wrong particulars regarding the date of birth, place of birth etc. It was also held that Act does not create or extinguish any right and that the Act is intended only to regulate the process and procedure of registration of births and deaths and the correction of any such entry. Further, this Court also held that once the Act permits such correction either in form or substance, the Rules are intended only to regulate the procedure and not to prohibit such correction. 10. The statutory provision providing for correction is S.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. R.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 under 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-R.3, R.4 and R.5 of R.11 may not be relevant for the purpose of this judgment.” 5. In the light of the same, I think the prayer of the petitioner can be allowed. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner : 1) Ext.P9 is set aside. 2) The respondent is directed to do the needful and make necessary correction regarding the date of birth and place of birth of the petitioner entered in the birth register, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Thomas Jacob's case (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.