JUDGMENT : Petitioner is the father of Mr.Saminson Thomas. In the birth certificate of Saminson Thomas, the petitioner's name was originally shown as 'Sunny'. According to the petitioner, it was an erroneous entry and that his correct name is 'Thomas V.T'. Seeking to have the correction made in the register and the birth certificate, he approached the respondents. On the petitioner's application, correction was effected in the manner “Sunny @ Thomas V.T”. 2. The petitioner's son is stated to be employed in Auckland in New Zealand. In connection with obtaining of permanent residency, there it is necessary to produce birth certificate before the concerned authorities. In the passport and other documents of the petitioner's son Saminson Thomas, the petitioner's name is shown as 'Thomas V.T'. Apprehending that since the name of the petitioner is shown as 'Sunny @ Thomas V.T' in the birth certificate, there might arise the same issues at the concerned offices, the petitioner approached the respondents for correction of the petitioner's name to 'Thomas V.T' by deleting the name 'Sunny'. The application was rejected by the authorities as per Ext P6 stating that since the concerned records were corrected earlier, there is no provision for effecting a second correction/alteration. It is aggrieved thereby that the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader. Despite service of notice on 2nd respondent, there is no appearance. 4. The right to have erroneous entries in the birth certificate corrected has been recognized by this Court in Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika ( 2009(4) KLT 714 ), Varghese v. Director of Panchayats ( 2008(2) KLT 278 ), Sivanandan v. Registrar of Births and Deaths ( 2007(3) KLT 721 ) and Girijan v. Registrar of Births and Deaths ( 2003(2) KLT 22 ). The mere fact that corrections were effected in the records once need not stand in the way of the authorities effecting further corrections on they being satisfied that there occurred error/errors in the records. The reason given in Ext P6 for rejection of the request cannot be sustained. Neither the Act or Rules prohibit the effecting of corrections on more than one occasion. All that apart, as noticed first above, even initially the petitioner had sought for correction of the name as 'Thomas V.T' instead of 'Sunny'. Therefore, the application is liable to be reconsidered. Neither the Act or Rules prohibit the effecting of corrections on more than one occasion. All that apart, as noticed first above, even initially the petitioner had sought for correction of the name as 'Thomas V.T' instead of 'Sunny'. Therefore, the application is liable to be reconsidered. Accordingly it is ordered that the 2nd respondent shall reconsider the petitioner's application for correction of his name in the birth certificate relating to his son dehors the reasons mentioned in Ext P6. The petitioner shall file a notarized affidavit before the 2nd respondent to the effect that he has been duly authorised by his son Saminson Thomas to take steps to have the correction done in the manner above.