Changes in the names of parents after the registration of the birth of the child need not be incorporated in the birth certificate. Gazette notification is admissible as evidence.

1. By consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to incorporate the name of the petitioner's parents, namely, Kumar Palanisamy and Vijayalakshmi Ponmudi, in the birth certificate issued on 08.12.2009, and issue a fresh birth certificate.

3. The petitioner was born on 22.01.2006, at Coimbatore and his birth was registered and a birth certificate was issued by the second respondent on 09.01.2007. The minor petitioner's father applied for citizenship with the Government of Canada and the names of the minor petitioner, his father and mother were changed by making a Gazette notification to the following effect:-

i) P.Kumar as Kumar Palanisamy

ii) Vijayalakshmi as Vijayalakshmi Ponmudi and

iii) K.Eesha as Eesha Kumar

4. The above change was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 22.04.2009. It appears that based on such Gazette notification, the petitioner applied for change of name in the birth certificate by an application dated 11.08.2009. This request was not considered by the second respondent and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.22039 of 2009. This Court by order dated 29.10.2009, directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.08.2009, within a period of four weeks. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the second respondent by order dated 08.12.2009, carried out the necessary change in the birth certificate, insofar as the minor petitioner is concerned, but however left the names of his father and mother unchanged. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for the aforementioned relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in 2001

(4) CTC 399, [B.Shambu Kumar vs. M/s.Raghvendra Steels Ltd. on the evidentiary value of Gazette notification.

5. Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, deals with correction or cancellation of the entry in register of births and deaths. For better appreciation, the provision is quoted below:-

15. Correction or Cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths:-

If, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.

In terms of the power conferred under Section 15, the Registrar if satisfied that any entry of birth or death in the register kept by him is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, the registrar may subject to the rules, made by the State Government may correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry.

6. Thus the statue is very clear that the correction or cancellation of an entry could be made in the margin of the register in cases where the recording is either erroneous in form or substance or has been fraudulently or improperly made. However, even in such cases, it is the subjective satisfaction of the registrar concerned. Therefore, when the statue prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in such manner only and not in any other manner. In view of the clear prescription, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the respondent. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot