Bangalore District Court
Gurunath Ibrahim Shaikh vs State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2025
KABC010135432024
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.3686/2024
PLAINTIFF : Sri.Gurunath Ibrahim Shaikh,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at No.57, C/o.H.Srinivasa,
Sunkenahalli, Gavipuram Extension,
Near R V Boys Hostel, Kempegowda
Nagar, Bengaluru - 560019
Rep by his GPA Holder,
Sri.Vedh Gurunath Shaikh
[By Sri.A.R.H, Advocate]
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS 1 State of Karnataka,
By its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2
O.S.No.3686/2024
2 Deputy Commissioner,
K.G.Road, behind Kandaya Bhavana,
Bangalore - 560 009.
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
(D-1, 2 - By Sri.M.M.Advocate)
(D-3 - By Sri.S.H. Advocate)
(D-4 - By Sri.S.A.R.R. 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.3686/2024
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. Gurunath Ibrahim 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. Gurunath Ibrahim
Shaikh to Sri. Gurunath Krishna 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
4
O.S.No.3686/2024
Standard” 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. 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 other valid causes, the
5
O.S.No.3686/2024
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.3686/2024
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.3686/2024
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.3686/2024
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.3686/2024
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.3686/2024
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.3686/2024
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.3686/2024
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.3686/2024
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 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.3686/2024
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.3686/2024
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 6 filed their written statement
and denied the contents of plaint contending that, suit of the
16
O.S.No.3686/2024
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.3686/2024
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.3686/2024
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
‘Gurunath Ibrahim Shaikh’ 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. General Power of Attorney Holder of Plaintiff himself
examined as PW-1 and got marked ExP-1 to 13 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.3686/2024
9. Heard the arguments of Learned Counsel for Plaintiff
and Learned Counsel for Defendant No.4 and 5. The
defendant No.1 to 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 :- 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, his father’s
20
O.S.No.3686/2024
name had recorded in his official records as Sri. Gurunath
Krishna Das and accordingly, his name has been 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 father’s name/surname from Sri. Gurunath
Ibrahim Shaikh to Sri. Gurunath Krishna Das in his all
personal records and his father 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-12 Aadhar card and as per said document, his
father’s name has been mentioned as Gurunath Ibrahim
Shaikh. He has also produced his father’s PAN card marked
as ExP-13 and as per said document, his father’s name has
21
O.S.No.3686/2024
been mentioned as Gurunath Ibrahim Shaikh. He has sworn
an affidavit before Notary Public and got changed his name as
Gurunath Krishna Das from Gurunath Ibrahim 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 Muslim Surname among his community
and society. So plaintiff 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
22
O.S.No.3686/2024
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
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
23
O.S.No.3686/2024
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,
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
24
O.S.No.3686/2024
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
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
25
O.S.No.3686/2024
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
(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.
26
O.S.No.3686/2024
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
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
constituency and includes an assistant electoral
registration officer thereof.
18. 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:
27
O.S.No.3686/2024
(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;
(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.]
19. Rule 14 of The Registration of Electors Rules 1960
prescribes the manner of lodging claims and objections.
28
O.S.No.3686/2024
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
(b) sent by (post to the registration officer or)
(c) be submitted electronically to the registration
officer.
20. 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
29
O.S.No.3686/2024and any other person who, in the opinion of the
registration officer, is likely to be of 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.
21. 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 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
30
O.S.No.3686/2024his 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.
(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.
31
O.S.No.3686/2024
(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.
22. The important provision under The Registration of
Electors Rules 1960 is Rule 26 which reads as follows:
(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
[(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.]
32
O.S.No.3686/2024
(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 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.]
23. 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
33
O.S.No.3686/2024constituency or to question legality of any action taken by the
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
34
O.S.No.3686/2024
Supreme Court has held that, Court cannot derive
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 in the
Affirmative”.
24. 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 “Partly in the
Affirmative”.
25. ISSUE NO.4 :- For the reasons discussed above, I
proceed to pass the following:
35
O.S.No.3686/2024
ORDER
Suit of plaintiff is hereby partly decreed
with costs.
It is hereby declared that, plaintiff’s name
and surname is Sri. Gurunath Krishna 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.
AN NEXURE
1. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff/s
P.W.1 : Sri.Vedh Gurunath Ibrahim Shaikh
36
O.S.No.3686/2024
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Plaintiff/s
Ex.P.1 : General Power of Attorney
Ex.P.2 : Affidavit of change of name
Ex.P.3 : Business Standard newspaper dated 08-02-2024
Ex.P.4 : Kannada Prabha newspaper dated 08-02-2024
Ex.P.5 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.5
Ex.P.6 to : 5 postal acknowledgments
Ex.P.10
Ex.P.11 : Letter of Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology
Ex.P.12 : Aadhaar card of Gurunath Ibrahim Shaikh
Ex.P.13 : PAN card of Gurunath Ibrahim Shaikh
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.