It is the refusal on the part of the second respondent to consider Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the Birth Register and consequential refusal to issue a corrected copy of Birth Certificate that constrained the petitioner to file the captioned writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that though she approached the second respondent, he is refusing to accept the same stating that he is not empowered to consider such a request from the petitioner, Essentially, the contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent is not justified in taking up such a stand in the light of a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in The Registrar of Births and Deaths V. Thomas Jacob reported in 2011(3) KLT 461. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
W.P.(C) No. 31828 of 2013 2
3. The learned standing counsel on instructions submitted that in case the petitioner submits such an application along with the requisite documents the second respondent would consider the same, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon. In view of the said submission this writ petition is disposed of leaving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application along with requisite documents for correction of date of birth in the Birth Register and for consequential issuance of Birth Certificate. In case the petitioner files such an application along with requisite documents appropriate orders shall be passed thereon, in accordance with law. It shall be done expeditiously and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such application.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.
dlk