P.N. Prakash, J.

1. This petition has been filed to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Erode to receive and number the petition dated 18.02.2015 filed under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and to pass orders on merits by considering the circular dated 14.07.1999 to issue a second birth certificate to the petitioner's adopted daughter Minor Oviyaa.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

3. It is seen that this petitioner and his wife Tmt. R.P. Vasantha Ranjani were not blessed with child and therefore, they approached Mr. Ravi and Mrs. Selvi, who gave their child R. Oviyaa in adoption. The adoption was registered as Document No. 19/2011 on 06.01.2011 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sale East. Thereafter, when the petitioner wanted to alter the name of the parents and initials in the Date of Birth records of the child, he filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. It is seen that the learned Magistrate has returned the petition directing the petitioner to approach the concerned Court. Challenging the returns made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, this petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court a Circular issued by the Government of India on 14.07.1999, pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in L.K. Pandey Vs Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 118. In paragraph 4 of the Circular, it is stated as follows:

"4. It may, however, be noted that the said guidelines pertain to only those children who are sponsored for adoption by the orphanages, Child Welfare agencies and other like agencies. There are large number of adoptions that take place outside these institutional arrangements for example children taken on adoption from relatives or friends. It has been decided to extend the benefit to such children also. As format adoptions of such nature are prevalent mostly in urban areas, it is more than likely that births of these children would have been registered and birth certificates issued. In such cases, it would be sufficient if the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area passes an order approving the particulars of the adoptive parents to be entered/altered in the birth register/certificate and also pass an order for issuing a second birth certificate. If in case, the birth has not been registered the Magistrate passing the order has to determine exact date of birth, which he can do on the basis of relevant proof or declaration from the natural parents and in their absence, on the basis of the certificate granted by the Chief Medical Officer."

Relying upon the above said Circular, the learned counsel submitted that the Judicial Magistrate has the power for altering the name of the parents of the adopted child in the municipal records. The aforesaid Circular came up for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court in B. Selvaraj Vs The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai, 2008 (7) MLJ 721 and the learned Judge has held in paragraph 12 as follows:

"12. Even then the circular cannot modify the procedure prescribed under the R.B.D. Act. Further, the RBD Act that provides for Registration only once. If the child's birth was noted elsewhere at the time, the child's birth by the information provided by its biological parents or by any other persons as required under law, then the RBD Act do not provide for a second registration. That was not the intent and purpose of the Act. Under the RBD Act, a child cannot have two registrations. To give effect to the circular of the Government of India, it requires a parliamentary amendment. Therefore, in order to avoid, such a lacunae and uncertainty the best way out is to direct the adoption agency to ascertain the age either from the biological parents, when surrendering the child. In case of an abandoned