In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner who is father of a girl child by name Niya Varghese, presently studying in standard 10, Choice School, Tripunithura, impugns Ext.P7 order passed by the Registrar, under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, having jurisdiction over the area of the Cochin Corporation. The petitioner also prays that 2nd respondent Registrar be directed to re-consider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner after affording a hearing opportunity to the petitioner. According to the petitioner the correct name of his child is `Niya Varghese. But due to a mistake the name was wrongly entered in the register maintained by the 2nd respondent as `Neenu Varghese. For correcting the name as `Niya Varghese, petitioner relies on Ext.P2 certificate issued by the school authorities. When oral request to the 2nd respondent for correcting the wrong entry failed, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application. Along with Ext.P3 application, he submitted his own affidavit as well as the affidavits of two respectable persons who are aware of the truth that the correct name of the petitioners child is `Niya Varghese. Ext.P4 is the petitioners own affidavit and Exts.P5 & P6 are the affidavits of the other persons. According to the petitioner, without giving even a hearing opportunity to him, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P7 order.

2. Shri. K. Anand, learned standing counsel for the Corporation has filed a detailed statement. It is contended therein that acceding to the request of the petitioner will amount to violating the relevant Rules. The registration of entries regarding the birth of persons born in hospitals is done on the basis of the information’s supplied by the hospital authorities. In the instant case, since the hospital authorities had not mentioned the name of the child, in the original entry the name of the child was not included. But, later in 1998 the parents of the child, the petitioner and his wife, filed a joint application requesting for inclusion of the name of their child as `Neenu Varghese and it was on the basis of that joint application that the name `Neenu Varghese was incorporated in the register. Therefore, it is contended that the stand now taken by the petitioner that the entry of the name `Neenu Varghese is a mistake cannot be true. The statement refers to letter No.RBDI-42836/74/L/DIS dated 10/09/1974 of the Director of Panchayat, letter No.1(2)(c)75/VA/RA Vol.III dated 21/11/1977 of the Government of India, Circular No.B1/9048/95 dated 01/04/1997 of the Panchayat Deputy Director and Circular No.B1/2815/2007 dated 20/03/2007 of Panchayat Deputy Director and produces those documents as Exts.R2(a) to R2(d).

3. I have heard the submissions of Shri. Mathew Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri.

K. Anand, learned standing counsel for the Corporation and learned Government Pleader.

4. My attention was drawn by Shri. Mathew Sebastian to Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 and to Rule 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1990. The counsel would focus on Sub Rule 4 of Rule 12 and argue that once somebody asserts before the Registrar that the entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, even if the entry is made on the basis of a joint application to which that person himself is a party, it is necessary that the Registrar shall correct the entries in the manner prescribed under Section 15, if that person produces a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and the true facts of the case supported by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. Shri. Mathew Sebastian relied on a judgment of this Court in Sivanandan C. Vs. Registrar of Births and Deaths, reported in 2007 (3) KHC 447 in support of his arguments.

5. All the submissions of Shri. Mathew Sebastian were stoutly resisted by Shri. K. Anand. According to him, it is not a case that the hospital author