Gujarat High Court
Nitaben vs Union on 8 September, 2010
Author: H.K.Rathod
Bench: H.K.Rathod
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10213/2010 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10213 of 2010
=========================================================
NITABEN
RAMESHBHAI SAVALIYA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
NAYANA V PANCHAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PS CHAMPANERI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 08/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard learned Advocate Ms. Nayana V. Panchal for petitioner and Mr. PS Chapaneri learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent authority.
Grievance of petitioner is that date of birth recorded in passport of petitioner based on school leaving certificate is 5th October, 1973 but according to petitioner, correct date of birth is 24th November, 1973 based on certificate issued by Birth Registrar. Therefore, request was made by petitioner to Passport Officer to make correction in respect of date of birth recorded in passport on the basis of birth certificate issued by Birth Registrar but no answer has been given by respondent authority.
When application for passport was made by petitioner, at that time, school leaving certificate was attached with application where date of birth recorded is 5th October, 1973 and, therefore, on that basis, Passport Officer has recorded date of birth in passport based on school leaving certificate. Now, petitioner wants correction of date of birth in passport on the basis of birth register, therefore, before that, it is duty of petitioner to make such correction in school leaving certificate, otherwise, straightway, passport officer may not change date of birth recorded in passport unless and until change is made in school leaving certificate based on birth register. That view has been taken by Division Bench of this Court in case of Regional Passport Officer versus Kokilaben, 2009(2) GLR 1246, para 9 to 12. Relevant Para 9,10,11 and 12 of said decision are quoted as under:
9. We may indicate that Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 was enacted to provide for births and deaths and matters connected therewith, which came into force with effect from 1.4.1970. Chapter 3 of the Act provides for registration of births and deaths and Section 13 is pertaining to delayed registration of births and deaths. Sub-section (3) of Section 13 empowers a Magistrate of the First Class to pass an order in case if birth or death is not registered within one year by its occurrence. Initial registration of births and deaths within a period of one year remain with the authority as provided under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. Section 15 of the Act deals with correction or cancellation of entries in the register of Births and Deaths. Section 15 of the Act, read with Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004 provides for detailed procedure to be followed. It says where it is proved to the satisfaction of the registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be or cancel the entry by suitable entry in original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation. Thus, it is clear that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that entry being erroneous in the register of births and deaths, and it has been fraudulently or improperly made, he can make a report giving necessary details to the officer authorized by the Chief Registrar by general or special order in this behalf under Section 25 of the Act and on hearing from him, take necessary action in the matter.
Learned Single Judge of this Court in Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat 2008 (1) G.L.R 884 elaborately considered the scope of above mentioned provisions, and the learned Single Judge also examined at length the provisions of Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 and Gujarat Secondary Education Regulation, 1974. With regard to the change of date of birth entered in the school record, referring to Regulation 12(A), it was stated that if the student has actually left the school, no change can be effected in the record of the school. For making a change in the name, as provided under Regulation 12(5)(1), an application in prescribed proforma with certain documents as narrated in Regulation 5(1)(A) to (D) are required to be submitted. Regulation 12(6) deals with correction of date of birth, which is permissible only when student is studying in the school, and thereafter it can be corrected by the concerned Magistrate of First Class, upon proof of correct birth date.
10. Reference may also be made to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 699 of 2003 in Special Civil Application No. 8122 of 2003, decided on 11.8.2003 (unreported). In Minor Jagdishbhai Prabhatbhai Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat and others, referring to Gujarat Secondary Education Regulation, this Court took the view that the only remedy available to the party with regard to correction of date of birth/place of birth is to approach the authority for redressal of his grievance as provided under Section 13 of the Act.
11. The above discussion would amply show that for carrying out correction of date of birth or place of birth or name, powers have been conferred under the Act on the Registrar as well as the Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, and also Magistrate First Class when the correction is sought to be made in school record, which is governed by Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 and Regulation framed thereunder.
12. We are therefore, clearly of the view that Passport Authorities are not expected to make their own independent enquiry when there is a dispute or difference with regard to the date of birth, place of birth or name entered in the Passport, especially when entries were once made on the basis of records produced by the Passport holder. If there is any mistake on the records already produced, based on which entries were already made, then it is for the party who seeks correction to produce documents after carrying out necessary correction by the concerned statutory authorities, Judicial Magistrate or the Civil Court, as the case may be. Passport Authorities are always competent to direct the parties to produce relevant documents either from the authorities functioning under the Births and Deaths Register or from the Judicial Magistrate or from the Civil Court, as the case may be. On production of corrected documents, Passport Authorities will immediately carry out necessary correction in the Passport.
In view of these observations made by Division Bench of this Court, let petitioner may approach appropriate authority as discussed by Division Bench of this Court. As and when such approach is made by petitioner to appropriate authority, let, appropriate authority may consider the same after due investigation/inquiry and to find out date of birth recorded in birth register is found to be correct or not and then to pass appropriate reasoned order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner within three months from date of approach made by petitioner and communicate decision to petitioner immediately thereafther.
In view of these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of by this court without expressing any opinion on merits. D.S.P. (H.K. Rathod,J.) Vyas Top