Goswami Tulsigiri Umedgiri vs State Of Gujarat

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.10.1963 in place of 20.12.1963. It is further prayed that the order dated 17.11.2018 passed by respondent No.2 be quashed and set aside.

2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Pathak for respondent No.1. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2.

3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that petitioner was born on 01.10.1963, however, in the birth certificate issued by the respondent authority, by mistake, Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/1723/2019 ORDER it is recorded as 20.12.1963. It is submitted that in PAN Card, AADHAR Card, School Leaving Certificate, etc., correct date of birth of the petitioner is recorded. When the petitioner came to know about the mistake committed by the respondent No.2 while issuing the birth certificate in favour of the petitioner, he submitted an application to respondent No.2 for correction of date of birth vide application dated 16.11.2018. Petitioner has also produced documentary evidence in support of his contention. It is submitted that by the impugned communication dated 17.11.2018, the request of the petitioner is rejected by respondent No.2 by observing that respondent No.2 is not empowered to make any correction in the birth certificate. Petitioner has, therefore, preferred this petition.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Thakore appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in 2008(1) GLH 556 as well as in the case of Gitaben Keshavlal Patel W/o Amrutbhai K. Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2009 (3) GLH (U.J.) 1. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted that respondent No.2 is empowered to make necessary correction in the birth certificate and is the competent authority under the provisions of the Registration of Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/1723/2019 ORDER Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1969'). It is further contended that without considering the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and without referring to the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2004'), respondent No.2 has rejected the request of the petitioner and therefore the impugned communication be set aside and matter be remanded back to the respondent No.2 for taking the decision afresh.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader is not in a position to dispute the fact that Talati-cum-Mantri is empowered to make necessary correction in the the birth certificate under the provisions of the Act of 1969.

6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties. I have also gone through the material produced on record. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the case of Gitaben Keshavlal Patel W/o Amrutbhai K. Patel (supra), this Court has specifically observed that Talati-cum-Mantri is empowered to make necessary correction in the birth certificate/register and is competent authority under the provisions of the Act of Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/1723/2019 ORDER 1969. This Court has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel (supra).

7. Thus, when respondent No.2 is empowered to make necessary correction in the birth certificate/register, the impugned communication dated 17.11.2018 is required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly it is set aside. Matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for deciding the application of the petitioner afresh. While deciding the said application, respondent No.2 shall consider the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and after making necessary inquiry as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and Rule 11 of the Rules of 2004. The respondent No.2 shall carry out the aforesaid exercise and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the case of the petitioner.

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) Jani Page 4 of 4