Sangitaben Naranbhai Parikh vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 5804 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Sangitaben Naranbhai Parikh vs State Of Gujarat on 28 June, 2024

Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen

Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen

                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/20460/2023                           JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024

                                                                                 undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20460 of 2023

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN                 sd/-
==========================================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                No
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                         No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy               No
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question               No
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                        SANGITABEN NARANBHAI PARIKH
                                   Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHIRAG A PRAJAPATI(8468) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS JEENAL ACHARYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN N SHAH(8866) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
    CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
                     Date : 28/06/2024
                     ORAL JUDGMENT

With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. Issue rule, returnable forthwith. Ms Jeenal Acharya, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Mr Rohan N. Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.2.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20460/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024

undefined

3. The petitioner, in the captioned writ petition, has prayed for direction to the respondent no.2 - Registrar, Birth, Death & Marriage, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to correct birth name of the petitioner from "Dipika" to "Sangita". The petitioner, is aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the respondent no.2, rejecting the request of the petitioner for correction of the name in the birth certificate. Hence, the captioned writ petition.

4. Mr Chirag A. Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the birth of the petitioner was registered with the office of the respondent no.2 with the date of birth mentioned as 31.01.1973. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner i.e. "Dipika", recorded in the birth certificate, is likely to create impediment in applying for passport and other documents. It is submitted that all the documents, namely, Aadhar Card, School Leaving Certificate, Passport, PAN Card, Marriage Certificate, Mark- sheet of 10th & 12th and Certificate of Gazette, carry the name of the petitioner as "Sangita" and not "Dipika". It is submitted that the application was filed, requesting the respondent no.2 to carry out the correction; however, the respondent no.2, without properly considering the provisions of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1969") read with Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2004"), has rejected the application. It is submitted that when the documents produced contain the name of the petitioner as "Sangita", there was no reason available to the respondent no.2 to have rejected the application. It is therefore, urged that considering the public documents on record, the respondent no.2 be directed to carry out the correction in the birth certificate of the petitioner.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20460/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024

undefined

5. On the other hand, Mr Rohan N. Shah, learned advocate for respondent no.2 submitted that no error has been committed by the respondent no.2 while recording the entry in the birth certificate. The information as provided, has rightly been considered and it cannot be said that any error has been committed in passing the order dated 25.09.2023. It is therefore, urged that the request of the petitioner was rightly not entertained.

6. Ms Jeenal Acharya, learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the stand of the respondent no.2.

7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record.

8. The petitioner, was born on 31.07.1973 and the factum of her birth, was registered on 09.02.1973 at Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the Act of 1969. Accordingly, the respondent no.2, issued a certificate of birth containing the name of the petitioner as "Dipika".

9. Notably, the petitioner has placed on record numerous public documents, namely, School Leaving Certificate, Aadhar Card, Passport, Marksheets, Certificate of Registration of Marriage, PAN Card etc. Besides, the petitioner has also placed on record the Gujarat Government Gazette of the year 1991 wherein, the surname has been rectified from "Parmar" to "Parikh". The petitioner on 05.08.2023 applied for correction in her birth name, which was wrongly mentioned as "Dipika", as the correct name of the petitioner is "Sangita". The petitioner, was required to remain present for hearing and has produced each and every above-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20460/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024

undefined

referred documents; however, the respondent no.2 has passed an order dated 25.09.2023, rejecting the request of the petitioner.

10. Since the issue is as regards correction of the birth name, apt would be to consider the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1969, which empowers the authorities to carry out the correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. Section 15 reads thus:-

"15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths - If 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 corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation."

11. Furthermore, Rule 11 of the Rules of 2004 provides the correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths, which reads thus:-

"11. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths:-

(1) If it is reported to the Registrar that a clerical or formal error has been made in the register or if such error is otherwise noticed by him and if the register is in his possession, the Registrar shall inquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, he shall correct the error (by correcting or canceling the entry) as provided in section 15 of the Act and shall send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the District Registrar of Births and Deaths.

(2) In the case referred to in sub rule (1) if the register is not in the possession the Registrar, he/she shall make a report to the District Registrar of Births and Deaths and call for the relevant register and after inquiring into the matter, if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, make the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20460/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024

undefined

necessary correction.

(3) Any such correction as mentioned in sub rule 2 shall be countersigned by the District Registrar of Births and Deaths when the register is received from the Registrar.

(4) If any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in the manner prescribed under section 15 of the Act upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (4) the Registrar shall make report of any correction of the kind referred to therein giving necessary details to the District Registrar of Births and Deaths.

(6) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry in the register of births and deaths has been made fraudulently or improperly, he shall 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.

(7) In every case in which an entry is corrected or canceled under this rule, intimation thereof should be sent to the permanent address of the person who has given information under section 8 or section 9 of the Act."

12. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1969 read with the provisions of the Rules of 2004, suggest that the authority have the powers to carry out the correction in the register of births and deaths. The Registrar has been empowered to inquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any error has been made, he has an authority to correct the error, as provided under Section 15 of the Act of 1969.

13. In this connection, apt would be the judgment of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel W/o Khodabhai Joitaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC-240227. This Court, has considered the aspect

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20460/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024

undefined

and powers of the authorities to rectify the birth certificate. While considering the Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths & Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat, it has held that executive instructions cannot override the statutory provisions. If the authority concerned, exercises the powers under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 read with Rule 11 of the Rules of 2004, it has to undertake the necessary inquiry. Paragraph 25 of the judgment, reads thus:

"25. Thus, answer to issue No.(i) framed as above, is that Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat, cannot override the statutory provisions and answer to Issue No.(ii) is that Competent Authority appointed under the provisions of the Act of 1969 and Rules framed thereunder cannot simply rely upon the circular and reject the request of the concerned applicant, without making necessary inquiry."

14. In view of the provisions contained in Section 15 read with the provisions of the Rules of 2004, in juxtaposition with the principles laid down by this Court, there is no denial to the fact that the respondent authorities have the powers to carry out the correction.

15. Undisputedly, the public documents produced on record also suggest the name of the petitioner as "Sangita". Had the authority concerned, conducted the requisite inquiry, it would have appreciated that in all the documents, namely, Aadhar Card, School Leaving Certificate, Passport, PAN Card, Marriage Certificate, Mark- sheet of 10th & 12th and Certificate of Gazette etc., the name of the petitioner is "Sangita". Therefore, this Court, is of the opinion that the inquiry as envisaged under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 read with Rule 11 of the Rules of 2004, has not been properly conducted requiring interference by this Court.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20460/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024

undefined

16. In the result, on the basis of the documentary evidence available on record of the captioned petition and in absence of any doubt raised about its authenticity and genuineness, the communication/order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 - Registrar, Birth, Death & Marriage, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, is quashed and set aside. In view of the above, the respondent no.2 is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the birth certificate of the petitioner and the name be shown as "Sangita" instead of "Dipika". Such exercise, shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

17. The petition succeeds and is accordingly, allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.

18. Direct service is permitted.

sd/-

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) BINOY B PILLAI