Gujarat High Court
Hardik Jayprakash Mehta vs State Of Gujarat on 30 July, 2019
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/12992/2019 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12992 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the No
judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the No
interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
================================================================
HARDIK JAYPRAKASH MEHTA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA JADEJA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No.1
MR ROHAN N SHAH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No.2
for the Respondent(s) No. 3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 30/07/2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Jadeja waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State and learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent - Corporation. Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 31 23:36:06 IST 2019
C/SCA/12992/2019 JUDGMENT
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to make necessary correction in the Birth Certificate of the petitioners son (a minor) for mentioning the correct name of the minor.
3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :-
a) It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage of the petitioners was solemnized on 07.12.2013 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Ahmedabad and out of the said wedlock, the son was born on 31.12.2017 at Sachi Maternity Home, Jodhpur, Ahmedabad. Pursuant to the birth of the son of the petitioners, as per the Hindu calendar, the name of the son of the petitioners was kept as 'Krishiv' based on the zodiac sign and accordingly, the said name was entered into the certificate of birth which was duly recorded by the authority of the respondent Corporation.
b) It is further the case of the petitioners that after a period of about one month, the horoscope of the son of the petitioners was prepared through an Astrologer and at that time, it was revealed that due to some marginal difference in the time of the date of birth, the zodiac sign was changed from Mithun to Vrushab. On account of change in the zodiac sign, the petitioners had changed the name of their son from 'Krishiv' to 'Viransh' which was in conformity with the zodiac sign as prepared by the Astrologer.
Therefore, the petitioners approached the authority of the respondent Corporation and had filled in the form for correction in Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 31 23:36:06 IST 2019 C/SCA/12992/2019 JUDGMENT the name of the son of the petitioners. However, at the relevant time, the petitioners were orally informed that in view of the circular of the Government, the process of change of name in the Birth Certificate has been discontinued by the Corporation and accordingly, the said form was not accepted. Thereafter, the petitioners had made an application to the respondent Corporation dated 19.06.2018 alongwith a notarized affidavit of the petitioners revealing the above facts due to which, the name of the son of the petitioners was required to be changed. It is the case of the petitioners that it was requested that the name of the son as recorded in the Birth Certificate issued by the respondent Corporation be changed, more particularly when the age of the minor son was hardly 5 months and also when the petitioners had not used the earlier name, i.e. 'Krishiv' at any point of time. This averment was even stated on oath in the Affidavit submitted alongwith the application.
c) As the respondent Corporation refused to carry out the correction as prayed for, being aggrieved, the petitioners filed a Special Civil Application No.11484/2018 and vide order dated 06.12.2018, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court took note of the fact that the representation was not yet decided by the authorities and was pending at the relevant time. Hence, directions were issued by the Court to the Corporation to decide the representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order and taking into consideration Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder. Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 31 23:36:06 IST 2019
C/SCA/12992/2019 JUDGMENT
d) Pursuant thereto, it is the case of the petitioners that a copy of the said order was served upon the respondent authorities alongwith a forwarding letter dated 29.12.2018 wherein the request for change of name of the minor was reiterated. However, by the impugned communication dated 10.01.2019 of the Registrar, Health (Births and Deaths), Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation addressed to the petitioner/s, it was intimated that the correction cannot be made in view of the Government Resolution dated 18.12.2016.
4. In identical facts situation this Court in the judgment in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2008 (1) GLR 884 and an unreported judgment in the case of Sachin Natwarlal Patel v. Registrar of Births and Deaths cum Talati cum Mantri in Special Civil Application No.9564/2018 dated 07.01.2019 has issued directions. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgments as well as the judgments cited by learned Advocate for the petitioners, it is clear that the Registering Authority is within its power under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Death Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Birth and Death Act, 2004, to correct the error as prayed for. Besides, the correction sought is only an innocuous one and the petitioners do not seek to derive any undue advantage out of such a change.
Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 31 23:36:06 IST 2019
C/SCA/12992/2019 JUDGMENT
5. Since the Court proposes to dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions, no Notice is issued at this stage. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court deems it just and proper to quash and set aside the communication dated 10.01.2019 of the respondent Corporation. The respondent - Corporation is directed to decide the application of the petitioners praying for change of name of their minor son, as mentioned in this petition, within a period of four weeks after receipt of writ of the order of this Court, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Rule made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) Caroline Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 31 23:36:06 IST 2019