IMPORTANT POINT
Even if the request made for correction is not explicitly covered by the facts conceived in Section 15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the Rules, still the statutory Registrar has the discretion to consider the plea for correction provided such pleas are bona fide and genuine and subject to availability of requisite materials in that regard in support of the claim.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned decision of the first respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths rendered as per Ext.P19 proceedings dated 9.8.2018 whereby the request for correction of date of birth in Ext.P10 has been rejected.

2. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows :

“i. Call for the records and issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P19 order dated 09.08.2018 issued by the 1st respondent.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to correct the entry as regards the date of birth of the petitioner in the Register of Birth kept in Adoor Municipality so as to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.01.1959 instead of 17.09.1958;

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to give permission if required to the 1st respondent to effect correction of the entry as regards the date of birth of the petitioner in the Register of Birth kept in Adoor Municipality so as to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.01.1959 instead of 17.09.1958;

iv. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case; and

v. Award costs of these proceedings to the petitioner.”

3. Heard Sri.Mathew Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Shaj, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P11 application before the first respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths to correct the entry of the date of birth recorded in the register in relation to Ext.P10 birth certificate as well as the one in Ext.P10 birth certificate and had placed reliance in that regard on Exts.P1 to P9 documents and Exts.P11, P12, P13, P16 and P17 declarations. According to the petitioner he has complied with all statutory requirements and formalities to get the entry in the register of birth corrected as contemplated under Section 15 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 1999. The first respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths had earlier rejected the plea of the petitioner as per Ext.P14 proceedings which was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. (C)No.30817/2017 before this court. This court as per Ext.P15 judgment dated16/7/2018 finally disposed of W.P.(C) No.30817/2017 by setting aside the above said rejection order as Ext.P14 and directed the Registrar of Births and Deaths to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and then to take a decision on the request made by the petitioner for correction of the date of birth on the basis of the materials made available by the petitioner and the declarations made available before the said Registrar etc. Thereafter the first respondent Registrar has now rejected the plea of the petitioner as per Ext.P19 proceedings dated 9.8.2018, in this regard it is relevant to note that the petitioner was born much prior to the coming into force of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 ( Central Act No.18 of 1969). At the time of the petitioner’s birth, the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 (State Act VIII of 1953) was enforced in the Travancore-Cochin areas and the provisions in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 ( Central Act VI of 1886) was in force in the Malabar areas concerned. The date of birth of the petitioner shown in Ext.P10 birth certificate is 17.9.1958. Ext.P10 birth certificate has been registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 (State Act VIII of 1953). The main ground of rejection taken by the first respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths in the impugned Ext.P19 rejection order is that as the petitioner’s birth has been registered not under the R