JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned decision of the first respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths rendered as per Ext.P19 proceedings dated 9.8.2018 whereby the request for correction of date of birth in Ext.P10 has been rejected. 2. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows : “i. Call for the records and issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P19 order dated 09.08.2018 issued by the 1st respondent. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to correct the entry as regards the date of birth of the petitioner in the Register of Birth kept in Adoor Municipality so as to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.01.1959 instead of 17.09.1958; iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to give permission if required to the 1st respondent to effect correction of the entry as regards the date of birth of the petitioner in the Register of Birth kept in Adoor Municipality so as to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.01.1959 instead of 17.09.1958; iv. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case; and v. Award costs of these proceedings to the petitioner.” 3. Heard Sri.Mathew Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Shaj, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P11 application before the first respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths to correct the entry of the date of birth recorded in the register in relation to Ext.P10 birth certificate as well as the one in Ext.P10 birth certificate and had placed reliance in that regard on Exts.P1 to P9 documents and Exts.P11, P12, P13, P16 and P17 declarations. According to the petitioner he has complied with all statutory requirements and formalities to get the entry in the register of birth corrected as contemplated under Section 15 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 1999. According to the petitioner he has complied with all statutory requirements and formalities to get the entry in the register of birth corrected as contemplated under Section 15 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 1999. The first respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths had earlier rejected the plea of the petitioner as per Ext.P14 proceedings which was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. (C)No.30817/2017 before this court. This court as per Ext.P15 judgment dated16/7/2018 finally disposed of W.P.(C) No.30817/2017 by setting aside the above said rejection order as Ext.P14 and directed the Registrar of Births and Deaths to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and then to take a decision on the request made by the petitioner for correction of the date of birth on the basis of the materials made available by the petitioner and the declarations made available before the said Registrar etc. Thereafter the first respondent Registrar has now rejected the plea of the petitioner as per Ext.P19 proceedings dated 9.8.2018, in this regard it is relevant to note that the petitioner was born much prior to the coming into force of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 ( Central Act No.18 of 1969). At the time of the petitioner’s birth, the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 (State Act VIII of 1953) was enforced in the Travancore-Cochin areas and the provisions in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 ( Central Act VI of 1886) was in force in the Malabar areas concerned. The date of birth of the petitioner shown in Ext.P10 birth certificate is 17.9.1958. Ext.P10 birth certificate has been registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 (State Act VIII of 1953). The main ground of rejection taken by the first respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths in the impugned Ext.P19 rejection order is that as the petitioner’s birth has been registered not under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, power to consider correction of errors in the birth certificate as conferred under Section 15 of the said Act cannot be invoked in the facts of the petitioners case. As regards the said main ground of rejection, the following aspects are relevant. As regards the said main ground of rejection, the following aspects are relevant. As mentioned herein above, the petitioners birth has been registered as per Ext.P10 in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953. Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 (Central Act VI of 1886) has been brought into force in the State of Kerala on 1.4.1970. 5. Section 31 of the 1969 Act deals with Repeal and Saving, which reads as follows : “31. Repeal and Saving-- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 29, as from the coming into force of this Act in any State or part thereof, so much of any law in force therein as relates to the matters covered by this Act shall stand repealed in such State or part, as the case may be. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken (including any instruction or direction issued, any regulation or rule or order made) under any such law shall, in so far as such thing or action is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the provisions aforesaid, as if they were in force when such thing was done or such action was taken, and shall continue in force accordingly until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act.” 6. Section 29 of the said Act of 1969 reads as follows : “29. Act not to be in derogation of Act 6 of 1886.-- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to be in derogation of the provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886.” 7. Section 31(2) of the above said Act stipulates that subject to the provisions of Section 29 as from the coming into force of the said 1960 Act in any State of India so much in law in force therein as relates to the matters covered shall stand repealed in such State as the case may be. Section 31(2) of the above said Act stipulates that subject to the provisions of Section 29 as from the coming into force of the said 1960 Act in any State of India so much in law in force therein as relates to the matters covered shall stand repealed in such State as the case may be. However sub-section (2) of Section 31 of 1969 Act stipulates that notwithstanding anything done or any action taken including any instruction or direction issued, any regulation or rule or order made in so far as such thing or action is not inconsistent with the provisions of 1969 Act will be deemed to have been done or taken as if they were in force when such thing was done or such action was taken and shall continue in force accordingly until superseded by anything done or any action taken under 1969 Act etc. 8. A Full Bench of this Court in the judgment in Abu v. Sub Divisional Magistrate ( 1998 (1) KLT 683 (F.B.) has held that before coming into force of Act 18 of 1969, the petitioner could have got his birth registered belatedly by invoking the powers of the Registrar under S.13 of the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953. It is true that by virtue of the provisions contained under Section 31 of Act 18 of 1969 the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 stands repealed by Section 31(2) of 1969 Act. It cannot be held that a party who has lost the right which he had under Section 13 of the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953, has to be denied an opportunity to get his birth registered by invoking the provisions contained under Section 13(3) of the Act 18 of 1969 and that if a different view is taken it would result in unreasonable and anomalous consequences, in that those born before 1.4.1970 will have no remedy if his birth has not been already registered under the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 and a person who is born on or afterwards 1.4.70 can get his birth registered beyond the period prescribed under law by invoking the provisions contained under Section 13(3) of the 1969 Act. That when the very object of the Act is to have a uniform set of provisions applying to all persons in India by doing away the different enactments prevalent in each State it could not have been the intention of the Parliament or the Legislature to deny certain persons the benefit of Section 13 of the Act 18 of 1969 and also the provisions of law originally applicable to them only on the ground that they were born before 1.4.70. Accordingly Their Lordships of the Full Bench has taken a categorical view that those who born before 1.4.70 also could take advantage of the provisions contained in S.13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 to get their births registered belatedly after the prescribed period. Accordingly, Their Lordships in the above said Full Bench judgment has overruled the view earlier rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Usman v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. ( 1987 (2) KLT 1028 ). Paragraph 4 of the above said Full Bench judgment in Abu’s case supra reads as follows : 4. Before Act 18 of 1969 came into force it was the provisions contained under the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 that governed the petitioner herein, since he was born at Kollam within the former State of Travancore-Cochin. S. 6 of the above Act contains the provision regarding the duty of certain persons to give information of the birth to the Registrar. Such information can be given within two weeks next after the date of such birth. There are provisions for imposing penalty on failure to give such information under S.16. S.13 reads as follows:- “13. Every Registrar shall without the payment of any fee register all information furnished to him under Sections 6 to 11, and it shall also be his duty to inform himself carefully of every birth and of every death which takes place in his village or ward, and he shall ascertain and register, as soon as conveniently may be after the event the particulars required to be registered according to the forms prescribed under Section 5, touching every such birth or death as the case may be, which has not already been registered”. The above would show that as far as the petitioner is concerned, at the time of his birth he was governed by the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 and in view of the provisions contained under S.13 of the above Act, it was open to the Registrar to register his birth even if no information of his birth was given to the Registrar within the time as required under S.6 of the Act. But, as mentioned earlier, under the Central Act 1969 different provisions are incorporated under S.13 in the matter of delayed registration of births and deaths. In 1987 (2) KLT 1028 (supra) a Bench of this Court took the view that a birth had taken place before Act 18 of 1969 came into force in Kerala cannot be sought to be registered invoking the provisions contained under S.13(3) of the Act 18 of 1969. The reasoning is that the Act is prospective in nature and therefore, it regulates only the events which have taken place after the coming into force of the Act. According to the learned Judges, in the case of a birth which had taken place several decades before the Act came into force no action can be taken to get the birth registered by invoking the provisions contained under S.13 of the Act. With great respect to the learned Judges, we are not able to agree with the above view. As mentioned earlier, before Act 18 of 1969 came into force the petitioner could have got his birth registered belatedly by invoking the powers of the Registrar under S.13 of the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953. It is true that by virtue of the provisions contained under S.31 of Act 18of 1969 the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 stands repealed. At the same time, it cannot be held that while the petitioner who has lost the right which he had under S.13 of the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953, has to be denied an opportunity to get his birth registered by invoking the provisions contained under S.13(3) of the Act 18 of 1969. If a different view is taken we will reach an anomalous position. If a different view is taken we will reach an anomalous position. Those who were born before 1-4-1970 will have no remedy if his birth had not been already registered under the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 and a person who is born on 1-4-70 or afterwards can get his birth registered beyond the period prescribed under law by invoking the provisions contained under S.13(3). When the very object of the Act is to have a uniform set of, provisions applying to all persons in India by doing away the different enactments prevalent in each State it could not have been the intention of the legislature to deny certain persons the benefit of S.13 of the Act 18 of 1969 as also the provisions of law originally applicable to them only for the reason that they were born before 1-4-70. We are therefore, of the view that it is open to those who are born before 1-4-70 also to take advantage the provisions contained under S.13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 to get their birth registered after the prescribed period. Thus, we hold that the decision reported in 1987 (2) KLT 1028 (supra) does not lay down correct law.” 9. In the light of the above said categorical legal position well settled by the Apex Court ((sic) High Court of Kerala) in the aforesaid judgment, it is only to be held that since the petitioner’s birth has already been registered in terms of the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 and in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 31(2) of the Registration of Births & Deaths Act, 1969, the registration so effected will be deemed to have been one under the 1969 Act going by the impact of Section 31(2) of 1969 Act. If that be so, if there is any error in the date of birth so registered under the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953, the said errors is also capable of being corrected in terms of Section 15 of the Registration of Births & Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. Hence the main ground of rejection cited by the first respondent in the impugned Ext.P19 proceedings that since the petitioner’s birth was registered prior to coming into force of 1969 Act on 1.4.70, correction of the mistake if any in such registration cannot be considered by him under Section 15 of the 1969 Act is clearly legally untenable and sustainable and hence matter requires interdiction. 10. The second ground of rejection is that the births registered on the basis of information given by the hospital authority etc. is not amenable for correction. 11. The issue as to whether the statutory authority like Registrar of Births & Deaths has the power to correct an entry like the date of birth issued by such authority is no longer res integra and covered by a series of decisions of this Court as in Sivanandan v. Registrar of Births & Deaths, reported in ( 2007 (3) KLT 721 ), Varghese v. Director of Panchayat, reported in 2008 (2) KLT 278 , Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika, reported in 2009 (4) KLT 714 (D.B.), Johnson v. Registrar of Births & Deaths, reported in ( 2017 (2) KLT 577 ). It has been held in those decisions that there are provisions contained in the above Act and Rules as in S.15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. It has also been held that even if any of the contingencies envisaged in S.15 and Rule 11 are not satisfied in a given case, still the statutory authorities have the power to correct a mistake, if it is shown that the plea in this regard is bona fide and reasonable and in such situation, the authority will have to act in terms of justice, equity, good conscience, etc. In the aforecited decision in Johnson v. Registrar of Births & Deaths, reported in 2017 (2) KLT 577 , this Court has specifically dealt with a case relating to an application for correction of date of birth as entered in the register of Registrar of Births & Deaths. It was held in para 4 thereof that the Registrar has adequate power to correct any error or entry without any alteration of the original entry by making a suitable entry in the margin and also sign the marginal entry. It was held in para 4 thereof that the Registrar has adequate power to correct any error or entry without any alteration of the original entry by making a suitable entry in the margin and also sign the marginal entry. It will be profitable to refer to para 4 of the judgment in Johnson’s case (supra) which reads as follows: “4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that as per the provisions of S.15 of The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the Registrar has the power to correct any error or entry without any alteration of the original entry by making a suitable entry in the margin and also sign the marginal entry. The said power can be exercised by the Registrar, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of the birth or death in any register kept by him under the Act, is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made. The provisions of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 and in particular R.11 thereof, also speak of the corrections of an entry in the register of birth and death. In the light of the peculiar situation that prevailed during the period from 2000 to 2007, I am of the view that the Writ Petition can be allowed, by directing the 1st respondent to effect the necessary corrections in Exts.P1 and P2 birth certificates, issued in relation to the petitioner’s daughters, by incorporating therein the address and permanent address of the parents of the children in question, at the time of birth of the children, and issue fresh birth certificates in lieu of Exts.P1 and P2, to the petitioner. The 1st respondent shall do the needful to ensure that fresh birth certificates in lieu of Exts.P1 and P2, containing the necessary details, are furnished to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition together with a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for further action.” 12. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition together with a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for further action.” 12. From a reading of the impugned order, this court is of the considered view that the first respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths has not taken into account the legal principles laid down by this court in the aforesaid judgments regarding the scope and ambit of the discretionary powers available with a statutory Registrar of Births and Deaths for dealing with the request for correction of date of birth entries in the birth register etc. In the instant case it is also to be borne in mind that the first respondent Registrar has not held in the impugned order that the request of the petitioner is not genuine or bona fide or that the same was submitted, due to extraneous or ulterior purposes etc. Accordingly, this court is of the view that the matter requires serious reconsideration at the hands of the first respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths as the impugned order is vitiated by irrelevant considerations and as the impugned order has not taken into account the above said relevant aspects of the matter. Accordingly, the impugned Ext.P19 order will stand set aside and the request of the petitioner for correction of date of birth will stand remitted to the first respondent afresh. The first respondent will afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through authorized representative and will take into account the various materials like Exts.P1 to P9 documents and Exts.P12, P13, P16 and P17 declarations and will evaluate the same in the light of the above mentioned legal principles laid down by this court. It should be borne in mind that even if the request made for correction is not explicitly covered by the facts conceived in Section 15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the Rules, still the statutory Registrar has the discretion to consider the plea for correction provided such pleas are bona fide and genuine and subject to availability of requisite materials in that regard in support of the claim. It is also to be borne in mind by the first respondent that in the instant case, the petitioner is a lady who has already retired from service and wants correction of date of birth in the birth certificate for production before the Governmental authorities of United States of America as she intends to settle there along with her son’s family. According to the petitioner the correction is highly necessary as the authorities of the said foreign Government finds any deviance in the date of birth shown in the birth certificate and such other documents like passport etc., then the request for immigration will have to face unnecessary difficulties and hardships. In the light of these aspects, the first respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths may consider the request sympathetically provided the plea is found to be genuine and bona fide. Orders in this regard should be duly passed by the first respondent within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.