Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

Petitioner adopted a child as evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2. Admittedly, at the time of adoption, the petitioner was not informed of any registration of the birth of the said child with the local authority.

2. According to the petitioner, he obtained information regarding the registration of the birth of the said child. He asserts that Ext.P4 is the birth certificate of the said child. He made Ext.P6 application for correction of the name of the child in the Register of Births and Deaths, to have the name of the child shown as Anjana D. The petitioner seeks a mandamus to the first respondent to carry out the correction requested for in Ext.P6 and thereby modify the tries evidenced by Ext.P4.

3. The first respondent has come on record with a counter-affidavit, inter alia, relying on Ext.R1(a) Circular.

4. The second respondent is the child welfare agency to which the child in question was relinquished by its mother and a declaration in that regard is given by the second respondent in the form of a declaration by affidavit of the Sister Superior of the second respondent. This is Ext.P3 document. It is stated in Ext.P3 that as per the records maintained, the said child Anjana D. was born on 11th April, 2002 and that the said child has been placed in the guardianship of the petitioner and his wife and that the said minor child is in the care and custody of the petitioner and his wife. It is also declared as per the said affidavit that there is no other document on record to prove the date of birth of the said child and accordingly Ext.P3 declaration along with the court order could be used as a birth certificate for all purposes allowed by law under S.7(36) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

5. One fails to understand as to why the petitioner thought it appropriate to fish out the details which he asserts as relating to the minor child who is under his guardianship as per the court order. I say so because, Ext.P4 relates to a child which cannot be immediately referred to as the child in question. As a matter of fact, in my considered view, the petitioner acted most inappropriately in trying to hold out Ext.P4 as the birth certificate of the child in question. This runs contrary to the very purpose of Ext.P3 declaration.

6. Following the land mark judgment of the Apex Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 469, Guidelines were framed by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in the Government of India through the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA, for short) for providing for adoption of a’ child by foreign parents (inter-country adoption) and also for in-country adoption.

7. In pursuance of the constitutional mandate, the Government of India has evolved a National Policy for the Welfare of Children. The thrust of this policy is summed up as part of the Guidelines, in the following words:

"The Nation’s children are a supremely important asset. Their nurture and solicitude are our responsibility. Children's programme shall find a prominent parting our national plans for the, development of human resources, so that our children grow up to become robust citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy, endowed with the skills and motivations needed by society. Equal opportunities for development to all children during the period of growth should be our aim, for this would serve our larger purpose of reducing inequality and ensuring social justice."

Following the above mandate, the Govt. of India has evolved several programmes to ensure the betterment of children and their development in a wholesome manner. The Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment mandated, amongst others, the welfare of children in difficult circumstances. The rehabilitation of such children through adoption is one of the major planks of the Ministry's policies for children. This policy keeps in mind the fact that the full and wholesome growth of a child is possible only in an atm