2023 Supreme(Mad) 891
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
M. Shruthi - Appellant
Versus
The University Grant Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD) No. 3 of 2022
Decided On : 06-04-2023
For the Petitioner:S.M.A. Jinnah, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, B. Vijaya Karthikeyan, R2, S. Jeyasingh, Advocates, R3 to R6, No Appearance.
The court has the authority to direct necessary corrections in college certificates and impose costs for deliberate nonappearance before the court.
Headnote:
Name Change - College Certificates - The court directed the college to change the petitioner's name from M.Shruthi to M.Sheri Faydha in all certificates and imposed a cost on the college for deliberate nonappearance before the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a name change in her college certificates from M.Shruthi to M.Sheri Faydha after marriage. The college advised her to get a court order, and despite no objection from the first and second respondents, the fourth respondent did not appear before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the college to change the petitioner's name in all certificates and imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 on the college for deliberate nonappearance.
Issues: Name change in college certificates, deliberate nonappearance of the college before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the absence of representation by the college unnecessary and directed the college to make the necessary corrections in the petitioner's name in the certificates.
Final Decision: The court directed the college to change the petitioner's name in all certificates and imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 on the college for deliberate nonappearance.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of impugned order in Ref.No.VMRFDU/Reg/MD/ (Mom)/2021/081 issued by the respondent No.4 and to quash the same as illegal and directing the Respondent No.3 to change the petitioner''s present name M.Sheri Faydha instead of earlier name M.Shruthi in the petitioner''s college certificates by considering the representation, dated 23.09.2021.)
1. This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to the order in Ref.No. VMRFDU/Reg/MD/(Hom)/2021/081 issued by the fourth respondent and to quash the same and to direct the third respondent to change the name of the petitioner from M.Shruthi to M.Sheri Faydha. The petitioner had given a representation, dated 23.09.2021.
2. Heard Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Vijaya Karthikeyan, learned Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.Jeyasingh, learned Counsel for the second respondent.
3. It must be stated at the outset that the respondents 4-6 had been served with notice through Court on 13.01.2022. They had taken a conscious decision not even to appoint any Counsel to appear before this Court. The names and addresses had been printed in the cause list. Taking note of the consistent absence, this Court had observed as follows on 07.03.2023:
“The names and address of respondents 4 to 6 are printed in the cause list. However, there is no representation.
2. Registry to examine whether any vakalat has been filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 6. If any vakalat has been filed, then name of the Counsel may be printed and copies to be served.
3. List the matter again on 16.03.2023.”
4. Again, since there was no representation even on the next hearing date, ie., on 28.03.2023. The matter was adjourned to 06.04.2023 and the following observation had been made:
“Even though the respondents 4 to 6 have been served and their names and addresses are printed in the cause, there is no appearance. One further chance is given. If there is still no appearance, whether the writ petition is allowed or not, costs shall be directed to be paid by the respondents 4 to 6 for deliberate nonappearance before this Court.”
5. Today, again there is no representation on behalf of respondents 4-6. As a matter of fact, in the cause list, it is noted by the Registry that vakalat had not been filed.
6. The petitioner herein, after marriage had changed her name. She had published the same in the newspaper and also published it in the Gazette. Thereafter, she had applied to the fourth respondent to change her name in the certificates issued. It must be noted that she had completed her Bachelor of Homeopathy Medicine and Surgey in Father Muller Homeopathic Medical College run by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science in the year 2014. She had qualified in her NEET examination and had obtained a call letter from the fourth respondent. She sought change of her name from M.Shruthi to M.Sheri Faydha.
7. I must appreciate the stand taken by the learned Counsels for the first and second respondents who had stated that they have no objection for change in the name nor on the decision taken to change the name by the petitioner. However, the absence of representation of the respondents 4-6 had made it necessary for the Court to adjourn the matter atleast on three occasions, hoping that a Counsel would appear. Again there is no representation. In the order passed, which is impugned, dated 08.10.2021, the fourth respondent had stated that they had advised the petitioner herein to get an order from the Court. After giving that particular advise, which was quiet unnecessary, the fourth respondent should have ensured that they atleast appear before this Court.
8. In view of this fact, a direction is given that the fourth respondent should carry o