JUDGMENT : Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext. P5 order and for a direction commanding the 2nd respondent to issue a Birth Certificate to the petitioner in the name of Anand instead of Kiran P. alias Anand P. on the basis of Ext. P1 Gazette notification dated 29/04/2005 with in the time fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. The petitioner is a minor represented by his mother. The petitioner submitted an application before the 2nd respondent for issuing a birth certificate in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that in the birth certificate issued by the 2nd respondent name of the petitioner is mentioned as Kiran P. alias Anand P. Instead of Anand P. Ext. P3 is the copy of the representation. Petitioner is studying in S.N. Central School, Karunagappally. Petitioner’s father is working at USA. Petitioner had applied for Education Visa. Ext. P1 is the Gazette notification dated 24/09/2005 produced would show that the petitioner will be known by name Anand P. only. In Ext. P2 birth certificate his name was mentioned as Kiran P. alias Anand P. Petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner requires correction in the birth certificate and that the corrected certificate is to be submitted before the U.S. Consulate in Chennai in connection with the issuance of Education Visa to USA. The application was rejected by the 2nd respondent by Ext. P5 order dated 07/10/2011 on the ground that as per Clause 7.6 and 7.10 of Birth Death Registration circular No. Bi-20741/2009 dated 08/12/2010 issued by the Directorate of Panchayat, the name of the child as well as the parent entered in birth register cannot be corrected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, allows the Registrar to correct the wrong entries made in the birth register. The 1st respondent has the authority to correct an improper entry made in the birth register and corresponding entry in the birth certificate. 4. This Court had occasion to consider similar question in the decision reported in Shipna Jose v. Registrar, 2010 KHC 6211 : 2010 (2) KLT 978 . The 1st respondent has the authority to correct an improper entry made in the birth register and corresponding entry in the birth certificate. 4. This Court had occasion to consider similar question in the decision reported in Shipna Jose v. Registrar, 2010 KHC 6211 : 2010 (2) KLT 978 . This Court considered similar questions and held that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 allows correction or cancellation of entry in the Register of Births and Deaths, that the legal position has now been laid down in the later decision by the Division Bench of this Court reported in Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika, 2009 (4) KHC 713 : 2009 (4) KLT 714 : ILR 2009 (4) Ker. 591 : AIR 2010 Kerala 77. The Division Bench after considering various aspects laid down the law which reads as fellow: "The 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, place etc. in the register of birth or death. It is also to be noted that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 does not create or extinguish any right; the Act is intended only to regulate the process and procedures of registration of births and deaths and the correction of any such entry. 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. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ext. P5 is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext. P3 application afresh and allow the correction on being satisfied that it requires such a correction. The order shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed.