Shri. Arjun Vitthal Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12791 Bom

                                                          17-wp-5088-2021.doc

jsn
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             WRIT PETITION NO.5088 OF 2021


       Arjun Vitthal Chavan                                        ...Petitioner

               Versus

       The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                        ...Respondents

                                        ----------
       Mr. P.R. Kateneshwarkar i/b. Mr. Ajinkya M. Udane for the
       Petitioner.
       Mrs. P.J. Gavhane, AGP for State - Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4.
                                        ----------

                                         CORAM :      R.D. DHANUKA &
                                                      R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.

                                         DATE        : 7 SEPTEMBER, 2021.

       ORDER :

1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India the Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus

directing Education Offcers of District Raigad, Solapur and

Kolhapur to forthwith correct and carry out the changes in the

date of birth of Petitioner's son from 20th July, 2004 to 21st

September, 2005.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited our

17-wp-5088-2021.doc

attention to the various documents annexed to the Petition

showing the different dates of birth of the Petitioner. It is

submitted that the birth certifcate issued to the Petitioner on

26th September, 2005 is showing the date of birth as 21st

September, 2005, whereas some of school leave certifcate are

showing the date of birth as 27th July, 2004.

3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the

Petitioners that the last two schools have already corrected the

date of birth as 21st September, 2005 in line with the birth

certifcate dated 19th October, 2020 showing the date of

registration on 26th September, 2005.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance

on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of

Janabai d/o. Himmatrao Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra &

Ors.1 and in particular paragraph 39. He also placed reliance

upon the judgment in the case of CIDCO Vs. Vasudha

Gorakhnath Mandevlekar2 and in particular paragraph 18 and

would submit that no case of inconsistency between the death

and births register maintained by the statutory authorities 1 2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 769.

 2    (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 283.







                                                 17-wp-5088-2021.doc

raises a presumption of correctness. Such entries made in the

statutory registers are admissible in evidence in terms of

Section 35 of the Evidence Act and would prevail over an entry

made in the school register, particularly, in absence of any

proof that same was recorded at the instance of the guardian of

the Respondent.

5. Mrs. Gavhane, learned AGP for Respondent - State

on the other hand invited our attention to paragraph 39(a) and

(b) of the said judgment delivered by Full Bench of this Court in

Janabai (Supra) and also Rule 26.3 of the Secondary School

Code and would submit that since the Petitioner has already

left the school, no such application in change of date of birth

can be made thereafter. On perusal of Rule 26.3 and 26.4. We

agree with the submission made by the learned AGP. The

Petitioner has already left the school. We thus cannot direct the

school authorities to make change in the date of birth at this

stage.

6. At this stage learned Counsel for the Petitioner

states that the view taken by the Court in paragraph 18 of the

said judgment in case of CIDCO (Supra) would apply to the facts

17-wp-5088-2021.doc

of this case. It is made clear that the Petitioner would be at

liberty to press into service the said judgment before the

authority before whom the Petitioner seeks to rely upon the

said birth certifcate. The concerned authority to consider the

judgment on its own merits and take appropriate action.

7. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid

terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

 [R.I. CHAGLA J.]                            [R.D. DHANUKA, J.]