The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order of the second respondent by which an application to correct his date of birth has been rejected. According to the petitioner, Exts.P2 to P5 are records like the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission, Pan Card issued by the Income Tax Department as well as the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. All of them show his correct date of birth. The case of the petitioner is that, he was actually born on 9.3.1981. But his date of birth has been entered as 8.3.1981 in the Birth Certificate. The petitioner submits that Ext.P6 was passed without hearing him. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. According to the second respondent, the date of birth of the petitioner was entered in the Birth Register on the basis of information provided by, none other than, his father. His birth was registered on 9.3.1981 with Register No.355/81 on the 2 W.P.(C).No.8115 of 2014 basis of the information supplied by his father that he was born on 8.3.1981. Ext.R2(a) is the extract of the relevant entry in the Birth Register, according to the counter affidavit.
3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no other contemporaneous documents to substantiate his claim that he was born on 9.3.1981 instead of 8.3.1981. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions setting aside Ext.P6 and directing a reconsideration of the application.
4. Heard. The correction of date of birth has to be made in accordance with section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. Sub rule 2 of rule 11 contemplates that, the petitioner has to support his application for correction with declarations 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. Since the petitioner is not able to produce other reliable contemporaneous documents showing his correct date of birth, the procedure to be followed is the one stipulated by sub rue 2 of rule 11. Admittedly, the 3 W.P.(C).No.8115 of 2014 petitioner has not submitted any such documents. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P6 justifying an interference with the same.
For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a fresh application for correction in accordance with rule 11 of the Rules. If such an application is submitted, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on the merits without being influenced by the stand taken in Ext.P6.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.