Gujarat High Court
Sarojben Prahladbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 3 July, 2019
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/5728/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5728 of 2018
================================================================
SAROJBEN PRAHLADBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
JAIMIN A GANDHI(8065) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NAYANA V PANCHAL(531) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 03/07/2019
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 of the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Birth Certificate reflects the date of birth of the petitioner as '05.08.1971' whereas the real date of birth of the petitioner is '10.05.1971'. It is submitted that the petitioner had preferred an application for making the above correction before the respondent No.2; however, as no order was passed on the said application, the petitioner preferred a petition being Special Civil Application No.18524/2015 wherein it was directed to the respondent No.2 to pass an order within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, the application of the petitioner was Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 03:01:52 IST 2019 C/SCA/5728/2018 ORDER rejected on various grounds. It is further submitted that the petitioner had preferred another Special Civil Application No.3883/2016, wherein it was held that evidences put forward by the petitioner are sufficient and thereby directed the respondent No.2 to decide the application on the basis of the evidences annexed with the petition. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 27.01.2017, pursuant to which a showcause notice was issued for initiating contempt proceedings whereby a reply was given by the respondent No.2 and the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. In the case of the very petitioner and pertaining to the very subject matter, this Court in Special Civil Application No.3883/2016 in the order dated 23.11.2016 has recorded as under :-
"4. Considering the order impugned, prima facie, in opinion of this Court, the petitioner has been able to establish that the date of birth is 10.05.1971. Even in the impugned order, the learned authority has relied upon the policy decision of the Government dated 18.02.1974, which prescribes for school leaving certificate, matriculation certificate, secondary school certificate and extracts of local authorities. Considering the record which is brought on record of this petition, as observed hereinabove, in passport issued to the petitioner, the date of birth is recorded as 10.05.1971. Similarly, in election card and school leaving certificate, the date of birth is 10.05.1971. Such material is to be considered by the authority while exercising the power under section
15. In prima facie opinion of this Court, the material which is placed on record is sufficient enough as evidence to prove that the date of birth is 10.05.1971. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2008(1) GLR 884, the respondent no.2 is the statutory authority to consider such request. In light of the aforesaid therefore, the decision dated 19.02.2016 at Annexure H to the petition is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent no.2 is hereby directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 15.08.2015 keeping in Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 03:01:52 IST 2019 C/SCA/5728/2018 ORDER mind the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel (supra) and also taking into consideration the certificates and other documents which are attached with the record of this petition. The petitioner shall furnish certified/true copies of the said documents before the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 shall take a fresh decision on the said application within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order as well as the necessary documents by the petitioner. The petition is disposed of accordingly. D.S. permitted."
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions :-
a) Oral Judgment dated 10.05.2012 in the case of Vipulkumar Ramanlal Patel through POA Patel Ramanlal v. State of Gujarat and Another in Letters Patent Appeal No.497/2012 in Special Civil Application No.2316/2012 and;
b) Oral Judgment dated 15.07.2016 in the case of Ghanshyam Maganbhai Talavia v. State of Gujarat and Another in Special Civil Application No.4596/2016;
5. 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 and Death Act, 2004, to correct the error as prayed for. Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 03:01:52 IST 2019 C/SCA/5728/2018 ORDER
6. Further, from the aforesaid discussion and the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3883/2016, it is apparent that this Court has found enough material to hold that the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.05.1971 and therefore, it was obligatory on part of the respondent in exercising powers 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, and correct the date of birth of the petitioner. 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.
7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the respondent No.2 with a fresh application, annexing all the relevant documents and requesting for rectifying the mistake and correcting the date of birth as mentioned in this petition and a decision be taken on the said application, if preferred, within a period of four weeks after receipt of such an application, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
8. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.
Direct Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) Caroline Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 03:01:52 IST 2019