Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 475 (KER)

Niyas v. State of Kerala

2013-06-12

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2013
JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. The case of the petitioner is that the date of birth of the petitioner happened to be entered as 20.05.1990 (instead of 11.08.1990) in the SSLC Book, as borne by Ext.P1. This is stated as only a mistake. The petitioner is pursuing the studies and is a final year Engineering Student. On coming across the mistake, the same was sought to be to be rectified. It was accordingly, that the mother of the petitioner filed an application with necessary documents before the third respondent to get a certificate, so as to take the same to the 5th respondent to get the date of birth registered, as it was not registered before the 5th respondent. By virtue of the statutory prescription read with the relevant rules, in the case of delayed registration of births and deaths, necessary certificate has to be obtained from the concerned authority, who, in the instant case, is none other than the third respondent. On filing necessary proceedings before the third respondent, a report was called for and the 4th respondent reported, after an enquiry, that the date of birth was 20.05.1990' i.e. as shown in Ext.P1 SSLC Book. According to the petitioner, this is nothing but a mistake committed by the 4th respondent, as a result of which, Ext.P4 certificate came to be issued by the third respondent mentioning the date of birth as 20.05.1990', instead of 11.08.1990. With the said certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner cannot be registered as 11.08.1990 and hence this writ petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the mother of the petitioner has already filed an affidavit dated 14.06.2010 before the third respondent asserting that the date of birth of the petitioner is 11.08.1990, which is produced as Ext.P2. Ext.P3 Non-availability certificate was also produced before the third respondent. 3. Pursuant to the service of notice, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the entry in Ext.P4 showing the date of birth as 20.05.1990' is on the basis of the contents of the application filed by the mother of the petitioner, wherein the date of birth was shown as 20.05.1990'. It was accordingly, that the matter was enquired by the 4th respondent, reporting the date of birth as 20.05.1990. It was accordingly, that the matter was enquired by the 4th respondent, reporting the date of birth as 20.05.1990. It was after considering the same, along with the statement of the mother of the petitioner and the school certificate and such other documents, that Ext.P4 came to be passed. 4. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that absolutely no blame can be put on the shoulders of the third respondent. 5. The 5th respondent has filed a detailed affidavit as to the factual particulars and the enquiry made in this regard, wherein it has been asserted that the date of birth of the petitioner could not have been 20.05.1990' with reference to the date of marriage of the mother of the petitioner, which was on 24.09.1989 as revealed from the Marriage Certificate. The contents of paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 are relevant, which are extracted below: "7. Non Availability Certificate was issued to the petitioner on the basis of the documents received in this respondent's office. The difference between the date of marriage i.e. 24.09.1989 in the marriage certificate and the date of birth, 11.8.1990 and the 1st child of the couple is 11 months. Whereas the difference between the date of marriage and the date of birth 20.5.1990 as entered in the school certificate is only 8 months. More over Non Availability Certificate was issued on the basis of the petitioner's attempt not to get the birth certificate as per the date entered in the school certificate i.e. 20.5.1990. 8. In the above facts and circumstances it can be seen that the actual date of birth is 11.8.1990 in all the documents submitted by the petitioner. As the Registrar of the Birth and Death, Non Availability Certificate has been issued based on the actual date of birth. On scrutiny of the relevant documents it has been convinced that 11.8.1990 itself is the actual date of birth of the child of the petitioner. All actions were taken in good faith in the capacity of Registrar of Birth and Deaths. It has to be presumed that the present petition might be the result of mistake committed from the part of 3rd and 4th respondents by which the date of birth has been recorded as 20.5.1990 which does not leave reasonable gap between the date of marriage and date of birth of the 1st child. It has to be presumed that the present petition might be the result of mistake committed from the part of 3rd and 4th respondents by which the date of birth has been recorded as 20.5.1990 which does not leave reasonable gap between the date of marriage and date of birth of the 1st child. Whereas the date 11.08.1990 does not give any scope for adverse inference regarding the date of marriage and date of birth of the 1st child of the wedlock. Any adverse inference can be taken into account only after furnishing legally admissible proof before the appropriate authority." In short, the 5th respondent who is the competent authority to register the Births and Deaths has no doubt that the actual date of birth of the petitioner could only be 11.08.1990' and that the wrong entry shown as 20.05.1990' is stated as might be the result of a mistake committed either by the 3rd or 4th respondent. 6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the version of the 5th respondent virtually supports the case of the petitioner. The mistake, if at all any, committed by the mother of the petitioner while submitting application or affidavit before the 3rd respondent showing the date of birth as 20.05.1990 cannot stand in the way of the petitioner in getting the same corrected, if the actual position is something else. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in his own capacity and the 5th respondent, the registering authority is stated as convinced as to the factual position in this regard. 7. In the said circumstance, Ext.P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent will stand set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to verify the position, with reference to the pleadings on record and such other materials, conduct further enquiry, if necessary and issue necessary certificate to enable the petitioner to have the date of birth corrected as 11.08.1990'. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Based on the certificate to be issued by the 3rd respondent as above, it is open for the petitioner to approach the 5th respondent for registration of the date of birth in the relevant records. The writ petition is disposed of.