Manishabahen D/O Arvindbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 1213 Guj

        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