ORDER :

1. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the respondent rejecting the petitioner's application seeking for correction in her birth certificate on the ground that there is no provision under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 to correct the name of the petitioner.

3. According to the petitioner, her correct name is Malleswari. However, according to her, excepting for her birth certificate, where, her name has been wrongly spelt as Maheshwari in all other Government records including Passport, School Leaving Certificate, Adhaar card and other revenue records, her name has been correctly mentioned as Malleswari. According to the petitioner, by total non application of mind to Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which empowers the respondent to correct any error in the birth certificate, the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 does not permit the respondent to correct any errors in the birth certificate.

4. Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 reads as follows :

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.

5. Heard Mr.A.P.Surya Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Karthikaa Ashok, learned Standing counsel for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to a Single Bench judgment of this Court dated 27.11.2017 in the case of V.Vaishnvee versus the Commissioner of Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai and another in W.P. No.28929 of 2017 and would submit that in identical set of facts, this Court had directed the respondent to carry out the change of the petitioner's name and issue a fresh birth certificate. In this case also, the petitioner has already given gazette publication on 03.11.2020 to correct her name as S.V. Malleswari.

7. Ms.Karthikaa Ashok, learned Standing counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the grant of a positive direction by this Court for correction of birth certificate in favour of the petitioner. According to her, the petitioner will have to abide by the laws of India and the respondent only after giving due consideration to the documents submitted by the petitioner and only in accordance with law has rejected the petitioner's application seeking for correction in her birth certificate.

8. As seen from the Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the respondent is empowered to correct any errors in the Birth certificate. However, as seen from the impugned order, by total application of mind to Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the respondent has rejected the petitioner's application seeking for correction in her birth certificate. Hence, the impugned order will have to be necessarily quashed, in the light of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

9. In the decision referred to supra, a positive direction was issued by this Court for correction of the error that had crept in the birth certificate. In this case also a positive direction can be given by this Court in view of the fact that excepting for the birth certificate oth