JUDGMENT : K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court, challenging Ext.P10, by which the correction in the date of birth of his daughter, was declined by the respondent, in the Register of Births and Deaths maintained. The respondent, despite issuance of notice and service, has not cared to appear. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner had declared his daughter's date of birth as 14.05.1987 in the Passport, the State Secondary School Examination Board of the Government of Kerala, Aadhar Card and Election Identity Card, as is indicated at Exts. P1 to P4. 4. The petitioner approached the respondent with Ext. P6 application for correction of the date of birth recorded as 14.01.1987. The application for correction was rejected as per Ext.P10, which is challenged herein. 5. The petitioner relies on two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in The Registrar of Births and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob, 2011 (3) KLT 461 and Chalakkudi Municipality v. Malavika, 2009 (4) KLT 714 . In Thomas Jacob (supra) the Division Bench noticed the provisions, which permitted correction of date of birth in the Registers, being Section 15 of the Registration of Birth & Death Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births & Deaths Rules, 1999. Section 15 provides for correction or cancellation of entry in the Register of Births and Deaths. The requirement is only that the correction sought for, be proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar, subject to such Rules as made by the State Government. Rule 11(2) provides that on assertion of any entry in the Register of Births and Deaths to be erroneous, the Registrar can correct the entry in the manner prescribed under Section 15 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. The Division bench relied on a Baptism Certificate, the SSLC Book, the Passport issued to the petitioner and the declaration made by the father and mother in that case, to come to a conclusion that the correction could then be made by the Registrar. 6. The Division bench relied on a Baptism Certificate, the SSLC Book, the Passport issued to the petitioner and the declaration made by the father and mother in that case, to come to a conclusion that the correction could then be made by the Registrar. 6. Malavika (supra) though not on similar facts, all the same, declares that the emphasis as seen from the substantive provision in the Act is on the satisfaction of the Registrar; when correction is sought for in the Registers. 7. In the present case also, the claim of erroneous date, is supported by Exts.P1 to P4, which pertinently reveal that the petitioner and his daughter have consistently declared the latter's date of birth before the Board of Secondary School Examinations, Passport, Aadhar Card and in the Election Identity Card as 14.05.1987. The specific contention taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, there were some laches on the part of the petitioner in correctly informing the date of birth to the Registrar. The declaration as provided for is also seen from Exts. P7 & P8 produced in the writ petition. 8. In the circumstances indicated above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's daughter's date of birth should be corrected by the Registrar in the Register of Births & Deaths; as asserted by him to be 14.05.1987. The respondent shall do the same and issue a certificate, on the petitioner making application for the same, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall pay the late fees as provided in Rule 9. It is made clear that the direction herein is on the basis of the facts disclosed herein as was done by the Division Bench in Thomas Jacob (supra). 9. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.