Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 188 (KAR)

J. N. Yoganarasimha v. State of Karnataka

2009-03-06

RAVI MALIMATH

body2009
Judgment : Ravi Malimath, J. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned endorsement declining to entertain the request of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth of his son. He contends that he made a request to the 2nd respondent in terms of Annexure-F seeking for the date of birth to be changed from 14.8.2006 to 15.8.2006. The same was rejected. Hence, this petition. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. M.C. Nagashri, learned HCGP for 1st respondent and Sri S.M. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for 2nd respondent. 3. In terms of the certificate issued by the Vinayaka Hospital, the 2nd respondent has accordingly issued the birth certificate on 22.10.2008. On receipt of the same, the petitioner finding an error in the date of birth has sought for the change. Accordingly, he produced a letter issued by the very same hospital, wherein the doctor has stated that there was an error in mentioning the date of birth as 14.8.2006, when in reality the date of birth is 15.8.2006. The letter was later placed before the 2nd respondent in order to correct the date of birth, which was rejected by the impugned endorsement. 4. In terms of the earlier endorsement issued by the hospital authorities, the 2nd respondent has entered the date of birth as 14.8.2006. Hence there is no error committed by the 2nd respondent in issuing the said certificate. It is only thereafter the date of birth is sought to be changed by the petitioner by relying on the letter issued by the hospital authorities vide Annexure-F. In the said letter, the hospital authorities have stated that the actual date of birth is 15.8.2006 and not 14.8.2006. 5. The impugned endorsement issued by the respondent stating that there are no powers to do so is errnoeous. In terms of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rule, 1999, power is vested with the Registrar to make the correction. 6. In the circumstances, it will be just and necessary to direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter afresh in terms of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. In terms of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rule, 1999, power is vested with the Registrar to make the correction. 6. In the circumstances, it will be just and necessary to direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter afresh in terms of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. If such documentation is produced by the petitioner in order to substantiate the date of birth as 15.8.2006 and on satisfaction of the same, the 2nd respondent shall issue a fresh birth certificate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above observation, the petition is disposed off.