Bangalore District Court
Vedh Gurunath Shaik vs State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2025
KABC010135452024
Govt. of Karnataka TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI,
B.A. LL.B.(Spl)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.No.3692/2024
PLAINTIFF : Sri.Vedh Gurunath Shaikh,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.57, C/o.H Srinivasa,
Sunkenahalli, Gavipuram Extension,
Near R V Boys Hostel, Kempegowda
Nagar, Bengaluru - 560019
[By Sri.A.R.H, Advocate]
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS 1 State of Karnataka,
By its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2 Deputy Commissioner,
K.G.Road, behind Kandaya Bhavana,
Bangalore - 560 009.
2
O.S.No.3692/2024
3 UIDAI Regional Office, Bengaluru,
Khanija Bhavan, No.49, 3rd Floor, South
Wing Race Course Road, Bengaluru -
560001
4 NSDL, 201, DBS House, 26, DBS
Business Centre Bangalore, Cunningham
Road, Bangalore - 560052
5 Office of The Chief Electoral Officer,
Nirvachana Nilaya,
Maharani's College Circle,
Sheshadri Road, Bangalore - 560 001
6 Karnataka Secondary Education Board,
6th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru - 560003.
7 Department of Pre-University,
Board of Education, Sampige Road,
18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Opp. CET,
Bengaluru - 560012.
(D-1, 2, 6 - By Sri.M.M.Advocate)
(D-3 - By Sri.S.H. Advocate)
(D-4 - By Sri.G.R.G. Advocate)
(D-5 - By Sri.S.R.D. Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 30.05.2024
Nature of the Suit : Declaration
Date of commencement of : 05.06.2025
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 01.08.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
1 2 2
(GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI)
VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
3
O.S.No.3692/2024
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking the relief of declaration of his name and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to effect change of his name in the records maintained by them.
2. It is averred in the plaint that, plaintiff is engaged in business activity and defendants are the Government authorities functioning under the State Government and Central Government. He had recorded his name in his official records of defendants as Sri. Vedh Gurunath Shaikh and accordingly, same name is recorded in his personal documents like Aadhar card, PAN Card, Election Identity card and other documents. Due to religious and personal reasons, he intends to change his name from Sri. Vedh Gurunath Shaikh to Sri. Vedh Gurunath Das, in his personal records. He has got declared his intention of changing his name by swearing an affidavit before Notary Public on 3.02.2024 and got issued declaration of his new name to the public at large by way of paper publication in "Business Standard" 4
O.S.No.3692/2024 newspaper and "Kannada Prabha" newspaper dated 08.02.2024. He has issued legal notice to the defendants about change of his name on 23.02.2024 under Section 80 of CPC which is served upon the defendants. The defendant No.3 has given reply dated 19.03.2024 stating that Aadhar Card holder has to follow the due process as contemplated under Aadhar Card (Enrollment and Update) 6th Amendment Regulations 2018. The defendant No. 6 has issued reply dated 05.03.2024. In a democracy, free expression of one's name in the manner, he prefers is a passion of individual right and in our country to have name and to express the same in the manner he wishes is certainly a part of right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a) as well as part of right to liberty under Article 21 of Indian Constitution. The State or its instrumentality cannot stand in the way of use of any name preferred by an individual or for any change of name into one of his choices, except to the extent prescribed under Article 19 (2) of Indian Constitution or by law, which is just, fair and reasonable subject to the limited grounds of control and regulation of fraudulent or criminal activities and 5 O.S.No.3692/2024 other valid causes, the bonafide claim for change of name in the records maintained by the authorities are to be allowed without hesitation. In the catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts from time to time, held that right to identity is an intrinsic part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and the fundamental right to keep or change one's name is vested in every citizen under Articles 14, 19 (1)(a) and 21 of Indian Constitution. Hence, plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction.
3. The defendant No. 4 has filed written statement and denied the contents of the plaint. This suit is filed without any cause of action against defendant no. 4 and liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that, it has been renamed as Protean eGov. Technologies Ltd (formerly NSDL e- Governance Infrastructure Ltd) and it relies on the fresh certificate of Incorporation dated 08.12.2021 issued by Registrar of Companies, Mumbai for proof of name change. Its name is reflected in the cause title of the suit. But correct 6 O.S.No.3692/2024 name of the company as per ROC Mumbai records is Protean eGov Technologies Private Limited. The plaintiff should take steps to carry out necessary amendments in the cause title of the plaint. The plaintiff has neither provided PAN number nor acknowledgment number for PAN application in the plaint. In the absence of required information about PAN Card of the plaintiff, defendant No. 4 will not be in a position to assist this court with any information or details regarding the plaintiff. For the purpose of issuance of PAN Card, or changes or corrections in the PAN Card data of the holders such as name, father's name, date of birth, address, photograph and signature etc in ITD PAN database, an application as per ITD prescribed Form No. 49-A needs to be submitted along with supported documents either in physical copy or he can alternatively submit an online application for aforesaid purpose along with applicable processing fees which are prescribed by ITD. The plaintiff selected not to address any prior communication to this defendant and proceeded to file this suit without proper understanding of ITD stipulated procedure for carrying out changes in the existing PAN card 7 O.S.No.3692/2024 by the PAN Card holders. PAN database is owned by ITD and any changes need an approval from the competent authority which is Income Tax Department Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The defendant No. 4 cannot its own take any decision to make changes upon the request of plaintiff unless and until it is approved and accepted by ITD after following due process prescribed. The plaintiff filed the suit without proper understanding of the ITD stipulated procedure for carrying out changes in existing PAN Cards. In the Para No.11 of the written statement, defendant No.4 has produced the procedure to be followed for changes or corrections in one case. The plaintiff is seeking change in the records of all the authorities by one time suit or order, instead of following due process with each relevant authority and providing the supporting documents to carry out the change. Instead of following due process with each relevant authority and providing supporting documents to carry out the change, plaintiff desires that, his name be changed in the PAN card and pan records from Vedh Gurunath Sheikh to Vedh Gurunath Das citing religious and personal reasons for 8 O.S.No.3692/2024 the proposed changes in his name and surname. He has failed to implead Income Tax Department as necessary party who is competent authority for PAN issuance which allots PAN card and authorize the changes in the details of PAN. The plaintiff has not produced documentary evidence in support of his contention in the plaint. This court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit. The plaintiff has chosen the method to circumvent / subvert prescribed process for change in details in PAN card and approached this court in haste and without understanding the ITD requirements. The legal rights are protected by following the prescribed procedure for change of name and change of other personal details, and individuals are treated fairly. In the context of name change or change of other personal details, it involves following the specific legal procedure and providing necessary documentation for carrying out requisite change. The documentation and record keeping should be accurate and complete records are crucial for legal proceedings which have not been provided by the plaintiff. The proper documentation is necessary to provide evidence, establish 9 O.S.No.3692/2024 timelines, and support claims of the plaintiff which has neither been provided to defendant No. 4 nor has been informed before the filing of the suit. In case of change of name and change of other personal details, proper documentation helps to verify the individual's identity and legitimacy of name change and change of other personal details. By requiring due process, the legal system aims to prevent fraudulent and malicious use of change of name or changes of other personal details. It ensures that, such changes are legitimate and not intended to dissuade or harm others. This court may appreciate the importance of legal formalities and proper documentation in the process of name change or change of other personal details. There is need to follow established procedure to protect the rights of all parties involved and maintain integrity of legal records which are maintained and owned by statutory and public authorities. The plaintiff has filed false suit with an intention to harass and humiliate defendant No. 4 and it is an attempt to circumvent the established procedure prescribed by the competent authority. The defendant No. 4 is Public Limited 10 O.S.No.3692/2024 Company Incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiff himself has admitted his name in the official records as Sri. Vedh Gurunath Shaikh and accordingly, the same name is recorded in his personal documents such as Aadhar card, PAN card, Election identity card and other documents. He has not shared any of these documents to defendant No. 4. Instead of filing this suit seeking the reliefs, the alternative remedy is available to the plaintiff. He has miserably failed to understand role and function of defendant No. 4, which is authorized PAN service provider with functions on behalf of Income Tax Department. It functions under the direction of Income Tax Department and hence to follow the duly prescribed process for change in PAN card details. The PAN database is owned by the ITD and any changes need an approval from the competent authority. The defendant No. 4 cannot its own make any changes upon any request from applicant unless it is approved and accepted by ITD and after following due process and supporting documents are complete. It is clear that updation /correction cannot be sought through this mode and there has to be the 11 O.S.No.3692/2024 basis for this suit which is missing. The PAN Card details are mandatorily required to check and retrieve details in connection with said PAN number. Since PAN Card details are not provided by the plaintiff, defendant No. 4 is unable to provide any processing details. Sworn affidavit before notary and paper publication are not served to defendant No. 4. The defendant No. 4 has not received any legal notice. Plaintiff has referred some reply received from the defendant No. 3 mentioning the procedure to be followed by Aadhar card holder for changes in name under governing Aadhar regulations. The defendant No. 4 has clarified above standard process for change of name on PAN card. Hence issuance of notice and replies are not applicable to the defendant No. 4. As the defendant No. 4 has been subsequently added by the plaintiff, he applied and obtained PAN card as statutory obligation, not as a right. It is for the income tax identity and return filing requirement. Pan card is a proof of identity for Indian citizens and NRI under the prescribed tax rules. Thus, without following the due process for changing the name as prescribed by the ITD, plaintiff cannot insist to revise the 12 O.S.No.3692/2024 government records without complying the prescribed process. Plaintiff has to follow the prescribed procedure per change of name with various government and statutory bodies in order to protect the rights of individuals and maintain integrity of legal records which are maintained and owned by the public authorities. The plaintiff has to adopt due process and apply for rectification of errors, if any, and to take circumvent route to file the suit and causing unnecessary trouble and harassment to the defendants through frivolous litigation, which will cause burden to the court. He has not approached the court with clean hands. The suit of the plaintiff and relief sought in the plaint is not maintainable and he is not entitled for any relief. If any change granted, as only subject to verification by the relevant authorities and by identifying the proof of documents put by the plaintiff, if any. For carrying out any change in the PAN card, as per stipulated procedure, a change request form is available. By filing the form and submitting supporting documents and paying applicable fees, the name change and 13 O.S.No.3692/2024 other details can be effected. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. Defendant No. 5 filed written statement and denied the contents of plaint. It is contended that, the suit of the plaintiff is hit by Section 30 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, which bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court interalia to question the legality of any action taken by him under the authority of an Electoral Registration Officer. Hence, a suit against defendant No.5 is not maintainable. The preparation of electoral roles for an assembly or parliamentary constituency under the supervision and direction of Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan No.7, Ashok Road, New Delhi, a constitutional Autonomous Authority. The defendant No. 5 is statutory authority functions under the Superintendence and Control of Election Commission of India. The process of preparation of electoral rolls for constituency is governed by the provisions of Representation of People Act and Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Election Commission of India, New Delhi under the provisions 14 O.S.No.3692/2024 of the Representation of People Act designates the Electoral Registration Officer for every assembly constituency in the State. The Electoral Registration Officer is the only competent authority to withdraw the name of eligible citizens of the country into the electoral role of the jurisdictional assembly constituency of the State and to make any changes in the particulars of the electoral rolls. He follows the procedure and provisions of Representation of Peoples Act and Registration of Electoral Rolls 1960 while carrying out his functions. The election identity card will be issued to the citizen whose name is entered in the electoral roll for a constituency. The registration of Elector's Rules, 1960 are made by the Central Government exercising power under Section 20-A Representation of People Act. Rule 13(3) of registration of Elector's Rules, 1960 mandates that any objection to a particular or particulars in any entry in the Elector's Roles shall be filled in Form No.8 appended to the said rules and such Form 8 shall be filled only by the persons to whom that entry relates. Rule 26 mandates the procedure to be followed thereafter. The Electoral Registration Officer after following 15 O.S.No.3692/2024 the procedure prescribed in the registration of electoral roles 1960 will adjudicate the Form 8. The competent authority to effect the changes in electoral rolls and to issue the Voter's Identity card is a Jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer, who is not made as a party to the suit and suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary party. The plaintiff has not mentioned Electoral Registration Officer, to which competency has issued him the Voter's Identity card. The plaintiff has not approached the Judicial Electoral Registration Officer by filing Form No. 8 seeking changes in the entries in the electoral roll. There is no appeal provision against an order made by the Electoral Registration Officer against an order made by the Electoral Registration Officer under the Representation of Peoples Act. The suit of the plaintiff is hit by Section 30 of the Representation of People Act which bars the jurisdiction of civil court. There is no cause of action. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and denied the contents of plaint contending that, suit of the 16 O.S.No.3692/2024 plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. The suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiff has filed the suit after lapse of considerable time. As per the circular issued by Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the name of the student in the school records and on this ground, the suit is not maintainable. There is no cause of action. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
6. The defendant No.3 has filed written statement and denied the contents of plaint. It is contended that, plaintiff has to follow Aadhaar Act 2016 and Regulations thereto to effect change in his Aadhaar and relief sought by the plaintiff is contrary to law. It is further contended that, UIDAI is a statutory authority established under the provisions of Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies Benefits and Services) Act 2016 on 12.07.2016 by Government of India, under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and MeitY is full pledged ministry under Union Government. In this suit, Union 17 O.S.No.3692/2024 Government is not as party as required under Section 79 R/W. Order 27 Rule 3 of CPC. The Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Sixth Amendment Regulations 2018 provides that, name can be updated twice by resident. In case, name is to be updated more than prescribed limit, it can be done through an exception handling process for which Gazette Notification of name change to be uploaded as proof of identity and resident is required to visit any of enrollment centres and change his name with the assistance of operator or supervisor by providing proof of identity as per document in the link provided by Aadhaar. The Regional Office shall do with due diligence and ascertain whether update request beyond prescribed period is genuine and may seek additional information from resident. Plaintiff has filed this suit without following proper procedure and Rules and Regulations mentioned in Aadhaar Act which is already available to the General Public. The said mandatory rules and regulations cannot be overlooked while invoking jurisdiction of Court. Mere service of notice under Section 80 of CPC has not created any right and it is not compliance of Aadhaar Act and 18 O.S.No.3692/2024 Regulations to update his name in the Aadhaar. There is no cause of action. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this Court has framed the following issues:
I SSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has changed his name as 'Gurunath Krishna Das' from 'Vedh Gurunath Shaik' by following due procedure
2) Whether the defendants No.4 and 5 prove that this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and consequential relief?
4) What Decree or Order?
8. Plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked ExP-1 to 18 and closed the evidence. The defendants have not chosen to lead any evidence on their behalf. Hence, defendants side evidence is closed. 19
O.S.No.3692/2024
9. Heard the arguments of Learned Counsel for Plaintiff and Learned Counsel for Defendant No.4 and 5. The defendant No.1,2,3 and 6 have not addressed their arguments. Hence, defendant No.1 to 3 and 6 side arguments are taken as not addressed and suit is taken for disposal on merits.
10. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.4 : As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
11. ISSUE NO.1 :- Issue No.1: Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking the relief of declaration of his name and also sought the relief of Mandatory Injunction seeking direction to the defendants to effect changes in the concerned records of plaintiff. According to his evidence, he had recorded his name in his official records as Sri.Vedh Gurunath Shaikh and accordingly, his name has been 20 O.S.No.3692/2024 recorded in his personal records such as Aadhar card, PAN card, election identity card and other documents. He has further stated that, due to religious and personal reasons, he intends to change his name/surname from Sri. Vedh Gurunath Shaikh to Sri. Vedh Gurunath Das in his all personal records and he has got declared his intention of changing name by swearing an affidavit before Notary Public on 03.2.2024 and got published in Business Standard and Kannada Prabha newspaper daily on 08.02.2024.
12. Plaintiff has produced affidavit for change of name which has been sworn before Notary Public on 03.02.2024 and he has produced paper publication in Business Standard and Kannada Prabha newspapers dated 08.02.2024. He has produced ExP-15 Aadhar card and as per said document, his name has been mentioned as Vedh Gurunath Shaikh. He has also produced his election identity card marked as ExP-16 and as per said document, his name has been mentioned as Vedh Gurunath Shaikh. He has also produced his PAN card which is marked as Ex.P-17 and as per said document, his 21 O.S.No.3692/2024 name is shown as Vedh Gurunath Shaikh. He has also produced his Passport which is marked as ExP-18 and in the said document also, his name is mentioned as Vedh Gurunath Shaikh. He has also produced his SSLC and PUC Marks cards which are marked as ExP-13 and 14 and in the said documents, his name has been mentioned as Vedh Gurunath Shaikh. He has sworn an affidavit before Notary Public and got changed his name as Vedh Gurunath Das from Vedh Gurunath Shaikh and he has published in the Business Standard and Kannada Prabha newspapers about change of his name. The word Das reflects name of Hindu identity. The surname Shaikh reflects the name of Muslim identity. The persons belonged to Muslim religion are being called by certain surnames like Pinjar, Nadaf, Mulla, Khan, Shaikh, Mujawar, Peerjade etc and these surnames are identity of Muslim religious people and by these surnames, they can be easily identified that, they are belonged to Muslim religion. But, surname of plaintiff has been recorded as Shaikh in his official records and school records and he may be put embarrassment while being called by Hindu name and 22 O.S.No.3692/2024 Muslim Surname among his community and society. So he intends to change his name in his official records and school records and to that effect, he has sworn his affidavit before Notary Public and given paper publication and got changed his surname. So I hold that, plaintiff has got changed his name/ surname by declaring before Notary Public and paper publication. So I answer Issue No.1 in the "Affirmative".
13. Issue No.2: The defendant No.4 has taken contention that, the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable and this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit and liable to be dismissed. According to the contention of defendant No.4, for the purpose of issuance of PAN Card or changes or corrections in PAN card data of card holders, such as name, father's name, date of birth, address, photograph, signature in ITD PAN database, and an application described in Form No. 49A needs to be submitted along with supportive documents either in physical copy or online application for the said purpose along with processing fees prescribed by Income Tax Department. The plaintiff selected not to address 23 O.S.No.3692/2024 any prior communication to the defendant No.4 and proceeded to file the suit. PAN databases owned by the IDT and any changes need an approval from the competent authority and defendant No. 4 cannot its own make any changes on any request from the plaintiff unless it is approved and accepted by the ITD, after following due process prescribed for the same. It is further contended that, plaintiff has chosen a method to circumvent/subvert a prescribed process for change in PAN details and approached this court in haste and without understanding the ITD requirements and on this ground, the suit is not maintainable. It is further contended that, The plaintiff has failed to address any communication to defendant No. 4 about change of his name or change of other personal details and failed to adhere to the ITD stipulated procedure for change of name details. The role of defendant No. 4 is limited to receiving PAN applications through TIN Facilitation Centers/ PAN centers or online. The processing, printing and dispatch of PAN cards. The role of allotment of PAN and authorizing update in PAN database is the role of ITD and in order to update the details of PAN card, 24 O.S.No.3692/2024 applicant needs to submit the required changes or corrections in PAN data as per the procedure prescribed by the ITD.
14. The defendant No. 4 has taken contention that the work related to the correction /changes in PAN Card details such as name, date of birth, address etc has been outsourced by the department to two service providers, Protean (formerly known as NSDL) and UTIITSL. A prescribed form should be filled by the respective applicant and after filling the data application has to be submitted along with requisite documents by payment of prescribed fee and there is official website for submitting the application through online which will be processed by the service provider and data will be reflected in the pan card, once the same updated by the service provider in the database of Income Tax Department.
15. The defendant No.5 has taken contention that, the suit of the plaintiff against defendant No.5 is hit by Section 30 of the Representation of People Act, which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It is the contention of defendant No. 5 that 25 O.S.No.3692/2024 preparation of electoral rolls for an assembly or parliamentary constituency are under the supervision and direction of Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashok Road, New Delhi, a constitutional autonomous authority. The Election Commission of India New Delhi under the provisions of Representation of People Act shall designate Electoral Registration Officer for every Assembly constituency in the State. The Electoral Registration Officer is the only competent authority to enroll the name of eligible citizens of the country into the electoral roll of jurisdictional assembly constituency of a state and to make any changes in the particulars of electoral rolls. The Electoral Registration Officer follows the provisions of Registration of Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 and Registration of Electors Rules, No civil court shall have jurisdiction-
(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any person is or is not entitled to be registered in an electoral roll for a constituency; or 26 O.S.No.3692/2024
(b) to question the legality of any action taken by or under the authority of an electoral registration officer, or of any decision given by any authority appointed under this Act for the revision of any such roll.
16. Learned counsel for defendant No.5 has referred the provisions of Representation of People Act and he has also referred Section 24 of said Act which deals with appeals. The said provision reads as follows:
An appeal shall lie within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed--
(a) to the chief electoral officer, from any order of the electoral registration officer under section 22 or section 23
17. He has referred The Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960, in which Section 2 (d) defined "registration officer"
which means the electoral registration officer of a 27 O.S.No.3692/2024 constituency and includes an assistant electoral registration officer thereof.
In Rule 5 of the said Rules, the procedure for preparation of Roll has been prescribed. In Rule 13 of The Registration of Electors Rule 1960, form for claims and objections has been prescribed which is as follows:
(1) Every claim shall be--
(a) in Form 6; [and]
(b) signed by the person desiring his name to be included in the roll; (2) Every objection to the inclusion of a name in the roll shall be--
(a) in Form 7; [and]
(b) preferred only by a person whose name is already included in that roll;28
O.S.No.3692/2024 (3) Every objection to a particular or particulars in an entry in the roll shall be--
(a) in Form 8; and
(b) preferred only by the person to whom that entry relates.
[(4) Every application for transposition of an entry from one part to another part of the roll shall be in Form 8A.] Rule 14 of The Registration of Electors Rules 1960 prescribes the manner of lodging claims and objections.
Every claim or objection or application for correction of particulars or transposition of entries shall-
(a) either be presented to the registration officer or to such other officer as may be designated by him in this behalf or 29 O.S.No.3692/2024
(b) sent by (post to the registration officer or)
(c) be submitted electronically to the registration officer.
Rule 15 prescribes the procedure of designated officers and Rule 16 says about procedure for registration of officer and Rule 17 says about rejection of certain claims and objections. Rule 20 prescribes the procedure for enquiry into the claims and objections which reads as follows:
(1) The registration officer shall hold summary inquiry into every claim or objection in respect of which notice has been given under Rule 19 and shall record his decision thereon (2) At the hearing the claimant, or as the case may be, the objector and the person objected to and any other person who, in the opinion of the registration officer, is likely to be of 30 O.S.No.3692/2024 assistance to him, shall be entitled to appear and be heard.
(3) The registration officer may in his discretion-
(a) require any claimant, objector or person objected to, to appear in person before him.
(b) require that the evidence tendered by any person shall be given an oath and administer an oath for the purpose.
Rule 21 prescribes the procedure for inclusion of names inadvertently omitted. Rule 21-A prescribes the procedure for deletion of names. Rule 23 prescribes the appeals from orders deciding claims and objections which reads as follows:
(1) An appeal shall lie from any decision of the registration officer under rule 20, 3[rule 21 or rule 21A] to 31 O.S.No.3692/2024 such officer of Government as the Election Commission may designate in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as the appellate officer):
Provided that an appeal shall not lie where the person desiring to appeal has not availed himself of his right to be heard by, or to make representations to, the registration officer on the matter which is the subject of appeal.
(2) Every appeal under sub-rule (1) shall be--
(a) in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant, and
(b) presented to the appellate officer within a period of fifteen days from the date of announcement of the decision or sent to that officer by registered post so as to reach him within that period. 32
O.S.No.3692/2024 (3) The presentation of an appeal under this rule shall not have the effect of staying or postponing any action to be taken by the registration officer under rule 22.
(4) Every decision of the appellate officer shall be final, but in so far as it reverses or modifies a decision of the registration officer, shall take effect only from the date of the decision in appeal.
(5) The registration officer shall cause such amendments to be made in the roll as may be necessary to give effect to the decisions of the appellate officer under this rule.
18. The important provision under The Registration of Electors Rules 1960 is Rule 26 which reads as follows: 33
O.S.No.3692/2024 (1) Every application under section 22 or sub-section (1) of section 23 shall be made in duplicate in such one of the Forms 3[6,7, 8, 8A and 8B as may be appropriate 4***].
[Provided that the statements in Forms 2, 2A and 3, from persons having service qualifications, received after the final publication of the electoral roll shall be deemed to be the applications under sections 22 and 23 4***].
[(1A) Every such application as is referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be presented to the registration officer in such manner as the Election Commission may direct.] (3) The registration officer shall, immediately on receipt of such application, direct that one copy thereof be posted in some conspicuous place in his office together with a notice inviting objections to such 34 O.S.No.3692/2024 application within a period of seven days from the date of such posting.
[(4) The registration officer shall, as soon as may be after the expiry of the period specified in sub-rule (3), consider the application and objections thereto, if any, received by him and shall, if satisfied, direct the inclusion, deletion, correction or transposition of entries in the roll, as may be necessary:
Provided that when an application is rejected by the registration officer, he shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejections.]
19. It is clear from section 30 of Representation of Peoples Act 1950, there is bar of jurisdiction of civil Court to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any person is or is not entitled to be registered in an electoral roll for a constituency or to question legality of any action taken by the 35 O.S.No.3692/2024 authority of an Electoral Registration Officer or any decision given by that authority. Section 22 of said Act prescribes the procedure for correction of entries in electoral rolls. After following the procedures prescribed in Rule 5 and 6 of The Registration of Electoral Rules 1960, it will be entered in the electoral roll and election identity card will be issued to the elector for franchise of his votes in the elections held to the constituency or other general elections or local Gram Panchayat or local body elections. The power for corrections of entries and inclusion of names in electoral rolls and issuance of election identity card vested with jurisdictional Registration officer and appeals are also vested with said Rules. Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to direct the electoral authorities for change of name of plaintiff in the electoral rolls and election identity card as held in the decision reported in Amrit Lal Baveja V/S Election Commission of India and others AIR 2010(NOC) 82(P&H). Even in the decision reported in Rampakavi Rayappa Belagali V/s B.D.Jatti and others 1970(3) SCC 147 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, Court cannot derive 36 O.S.No.3692/2024 jurisdiction apart from the statute. When statute has not provided jurisdiction to the Court to exercise power, this Court cannot exercise and direct the defendant No.3 to 5 to make correction in their records. This Court can only direct school authorities for change of name of plaintiff in the school authorities. So I answer issue No.2 in PARTLY AFFIRMATIVE.
20. Issue No.3: In view of my discussion, I hold that, plaintiff is only entitled to relief of declaration and Mandatory Injunction for change of his name and surname in the school records and not in the election identity card and Aadhar card and PAN Card. So I answered Issue No.3 in PARTLY AFFIRMATIVE.
21. Issue No.4: For the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following:
37
O.S.No.3692/2024 ORDER Suit of plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
It is hereby declared that, plaintiff's name and surname is Sri. Veda Gurunath Das.
Decree of Mandatory Injunction is granted directing the defendant No.1 and 2 to enter declared name of plaintiff in the school records.
Relief sought by plaintiff against the defendant No.3 to 5 is hereby rejected. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed and computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 1st day of August, 2025) (GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.38
O.S.No.3692/2024 AN NEXURE
1. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff/s P.W.1 : Sri.Vedh Gurunath Shaikh
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Plaintiff/s Ex.P.1 : Affidavit of change of name Ex.P.2 : Business Standard newspaper dated 08-02-2024 Ex.P.3 : Kannada Prabha newspaper dated 08-02-2024 Ex.P.4 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.5 to : 6 postal acknowledgments Ex.P.10 Ex.P.11 : Letter of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology Ex.P.12 : Letter of SSLC Board Ex.P.13 : My original SSLC marks card Ex.P.14 : My original PUC marks card Ex.P.15 : My original Aadhaar card Ex.P.16 : My original election ID card Ex.P.17 : My original PAN card Ex.P.18 : My passport
3. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant/s : - Nil -
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Defendant/s : - Nil -
VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.