Gujarat High Court
Anal Sanjaykumar Patel vs The Registrar Health Birth And Death ... on 5 July, 2019
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/6720/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6720 of 2018
===========================================================
ANAL SANJAYKUMAR PATEL
Versus
THE REGISTRAR HEALTH BIRTH AND DEATH AHMEDABAD
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ISHAN MIHIR PATEL(6508) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 05/07/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to make necessary correction in the Birth Certificate of the petitioner for mentioning the correct date of birth.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Birth Certificate reflects the the date of birth of the petitioner as '29.09.1977' whereas the real date of birth of the petitioner is '29.08.1977'. Learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the other documents pertaining to her date of birth like School Leaving Certificate, PAN Card, Aadhar Card and Driving License also reflects the correct date of birth.
3. To remove this discrepancy, the petitioner had approached the authority's office requesting for rectification of the date of birth. However, as no decision was taken, the petitioner filed a written application dated 02.04.2018 seeking correction of the date of birth and annexing all the relevant documents. However, the said Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:27:24 IST 2019 C/SCA/6720/2018 ORDER application was rejected by the respondent No.2 by stating that the correction can be made only if the error is made to the extent of one day.
4. Learned Advocate draws attention of this Court to an unreported judgment in the case of Suhaniben D/o. Bhikhabhai Patel & W/o Gaureshkumar Patel v. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Special Civil Application No.1174/2018 dated 07.09.2018.
5. Learned Advocate for the respondent opposes the petition on the ground that the Register for Birth and Death maintained by the authority is based on the information given from the Hospital where the birth has taken place. Learned Advocate for the respondent has relied upon the order of this Court in the case of Varshaben Bharatbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat and Others in Special Civil Application No.13912/2016.
6. 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, 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 Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:27:24 IST 2019 C/SCA/6720/2018 ORDER and Death Act, 2004, to correct the error as prayed for.
7. Besides, reliance placed by the learned Advocate for the respondent in the case of Varshaben Bharatbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat and Others in Special Civil Application No.13912/2016 would have no consequence in the facts of the present case as in the case of Varshaben Bharatbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat and Others, the authorities were able to place on record the Register maintained by the Hospital which was the conclusive evidence regarding the date of birth of the petitioner therein. In the present case, what is produced on record today is the Register maintained purportedly under the information given by the Hospital. Moreover, the correction appears to be an innocuous one and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is likely to derive any undue advantage out of such a correction.
8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No.2 to re-consider the application of the petitioner for rectifying the mistake and correcting the date of birth as mentioned in this petition, within a period of four weeks after receipt of writ of the order of this Court, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
9. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.
Direct Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) Caroline Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:27:24 IST 2019