M.Iniyavan v. The Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH M.Iniyavan : Petitioner Vs.
1. The Commissioner, Karaikudi Corporation, Karaikudi Corporation Office, Sivagangai District.
2. The Registrar, Birth and Death Registration Department, Karaikudi Corporation Office, Sivagangai District.
: Respondents P RAYER:
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to change the petitioners daughters name as I.Raja Rejika instead of Rejikasree in the birth certificate Registration before the 2nd respondent office under registration No. B-2023.33-8210- 000283 on 25.04.2023 and issued the same considering the petitioner representation dated dated 25.05.2023.
1/6
For Petitioner : S.Yasar Arafath For Respondents : Mr.E.P.Venkateshwar
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to change the petitioner's daughter's name to "I. Raja Rejika", instead of "Rejikasree", in the birth certificate registration (Registration No. B-2023.33-8210-000283) made on 25.04.2023. The petitioner further seeks the issuance of the corrected birth certificate in accordance with the petitioner's representation dated 11.12.2024, in the
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The petitioner asserts that he changed his daughter's name to "I.Raja Rejika", replacing the name "Rejikasree" and the change was published in the Government Gazette on 18.11.2020, under Serial No. 15359. Thereafter, he approached the second respondent for the issuance 2/6
of a new birth certificate reflecting the name as published in the Government Gazette. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 11.12.2024 to the respondents. However, since no action has been taken, the petitioner has now filed the present writ petition.
4. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.
5. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the second respondent, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.12.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the 3/6
subject matter, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the respondent to consider the same on its own merits.
6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 12.03.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PKN 4/6
To
1. The Commissioner, Karaikudi Corporation, Karaikudi Corporation Office, Sivagangai District.
2. The Registrar, Birth and Death Registration Department, Karaikudi Corporation Office, Sivagangai District.
5/6
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
PKN W.P.(MD) No.5778 of 2025 12.03.2025 6/6