Gujarat High Court
Manishabahen D/O Arvindbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 27 January, 2021
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/1101/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1101 of 2021
==========================================================
MANISHABAHEN D/O ARVINDBHAI GIRDHARDAS PATEL AND W/O
CHIRAGKUMAR DASHRATHLAL PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RONAK RAVAL, AGP(99) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 27/01/2021
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate for the
petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Raval for the
respondent no.1.
The limited grievance in this petition
which is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is that though the
petitioner has submitted a representation to the
respondent no.2-Talati-cum-Mantri for correction
of the name as well as correction of birth date
in the birth certificate issued by the respondent
no.2 as per the said representation, till date,
the said representation has not been decided.
Learned advocate for the petitioner
further submits that the respondent no.2-Talati-
C/SCA/1101/2021 ORDER
cum-Mantri is empowered to correct the name as
well as birth date after making the necessary
inquiry as contemplated under Section 15 of the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act and Rule 11
of the Rules framed thereunder. Learned advocate
for the petitioner has relied on the judgment in
the case of Gitaben Keshavlal Patel V/s State of
Gujarat, reported in 2009(3) GLH(UJ)1 and in the
case of Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel V/s State of
Gujarat reported in 2019(3) GLR 1866. It is
submitted that the respondent-authority be
directed to consider the documentary evidence
produced by the petitioner as well as the
aforesaid decisions and thereafter pass
appropriate order in accordance with law.
Having heard learned advocates appearing
for the parties and having gone through the
material placed on record, it has emerged that
the limited grievance of the petitioner, at this
stage, is that the representation dated
16.12.2020 submitted by the petitioner, copy of
which is placed on record at page 14 has not been
decided by the respondent no.2 and therefore this
petition is disposed off with a direction to the
respondent no.2 to decide the said representation
in accordance with law after considering the
documentary evidence produced by the petitioner
and after making inquiry as contemplated under
C/SCA/1101/2021 ORDER
Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and the Rules made
thereunder and keeping in view the aforesaid two
decisions upon which the reliance is placed by
the learned advocate for the petitioner. The said
exercise shall be carried out within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
It is clarified that this Court has not examined
the merits of the case of the petitioner. Direct
service is permitted.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
SRILATHA
