Gujarat High Court
Shrutiben Kantilal Patel vs Registrar on 9 September, 2024
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8935/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8935 of 2024
==========================================================
SHRUTIBEN KANTILAL PATEL
Versus
REGISTRAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 09/09/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate for the petitioner, has tendered a draft
amendment. Amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. Same
shall be carried out forthwith.
2. By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for
direction to the respondent to correct the date of birth as
22.04.1982 instead of 22.12.1982 in the birth register, coupled
with further direction to the respondent to issue fresh Birth
Certificate. By the amendment, the petitioner, also seeks to
challenge the communication dated 01.08.2024 issued by the
Sub-Registrar, Birth & Death (Central) Office, Surat Municipal
Corporation whereby, the request of the petitioner to correct
the date of birth, has been rejected.
3. Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the
petitioner, submitted that the correct date of birth of the
petitioner is 22.04.1982; however, inadvertently, in the Birth
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8935/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
Certificate, the same is recorded as 22.12.1982. It is submitted
that the petitioner, has taken education from Surat and after
her marriage, she has been staying in Canada with her family
since last 24 years. It is submitted that except the Birth
Certificate, in rest of the public documents, namely, the School
Leaving Certificate; the Aadhar Card; the Passport, the correct
date of birth of the petitioner is 22.04.1982. It is submitted
that when in all the public documents the date of birth is
recorded as 22.04.1982, there was no reason available to the
authority to refuse the request of the petitioner to change the
date of birth in the Birth Certificate.
3.1 Reliance is placed on case of Anil Navinchandra Patel vs.
Registrar Births and Deaths passed in Special Civil Application
No.607 of 2003. It is submitted that this Court, has placed
reliance on various authorities and considering the legal
position, directed the respondent to accept the application and
correct the name of the petitioner, as requested. Reliance is
also placed on the judgment in the case of Mukeshkumar
Prahaladbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2020 (2)
GLH (UJ) 1. It is submitted that in view of the well-recognized
principle, the application, ought to have been accepted and the
birth certificate ought to have been issued with necessary
correction.
4. Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya, learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8935/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
respondent submitted that there is no error on the part of
respondent authority in recording the date of birth, as the
Birth Certificate, which has been issued, is as per the
information received from the hospital, so also the documents
submitted to the Corporation. Hence, the application of the
petitioner was not considered and the request of the petitioner
accordingly, was refused.
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is for correction in the
Birth Certificate issued by the office of the Sub-Registrar (Birth
& Death), Surat Municipal Corporation. According to the
petitioner, the date of birth, is incorrectly recorded as
22.12.1982 instead of 22.04.1982. As against this, the stand
taken by the respondent is that the details received from the
hospital, has been recorded in the Birth Certificate. The
petitioner has placed voluminous documents on record,
namely, the School Leaving Certificate issued by the I.C.
Gandhi High School, Surat wherein, the date of birth, is
recorded as 22.04.1982; the Passport wherein, the date of birth
is recorded as 22.04.1982; so also the Aadhar Card, the date of
birth is recorded as 22.04.1982. The father of the petitioner
has filed an affidavit, declaring that the date of birth of the
petitioner is 22.04.1982; however, inadvertently, the date of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8935/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
birth recorded in the Birth Certificate is 22.12.1982. With all
these documents, necessary correction is requested by the
petitioner in the Birth Certificate. The petitioner, has applied
for correction in the Birth Certificate, as she is in need of the
corrected Birth Certificate. Application filed by the petitioner,
came to be rejected by the respondent on the ground that the
details were sought for from Sadhna hospital where the
petitioner was born, and as per the record, the date of birth is
mentioned as 22.12.1982.
7. At this stage, provision of Section 15 of the Registration
of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act of 1969') as well as Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of
Births and Deaths Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Rules of 2004'), are worth recording to;
"S.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"
"Rule 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8935/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
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 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."
8. In the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel vs. State of
Gujarat reported in 2008 (1) GLR 884, this Court, has held and
observed that when an authority is empowered to exercise
powers under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and Rule 11 of
the Rules of 2004, if it refuses to exercise its powers, a writ
petition can be entertained. It has been also observed that it is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8935/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
by now well settled that the authorities are under an
obligation to correct the date of birth while exercising the
powers. In case of Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel W/o.
Khodabhai Joitaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat passed in Special
Civil Application No.19054 of 2018, this Court has held and
observed as under;
"22.From the aforesaid statutory provisions and the decisions
rendered by this Court, following aspects would emerge;
(a) The expression 'erroneous in form of substance' in Section 15
of the Act of 1969 is an expression of wide amplitude and does
not confine to simple typing errors or clerical mistakes and no
guidelines or circulars can take away powers of the Registrar of
making correction in entries which are erroneous in form or
substance in register as envisaged under Section 15 of the Act of
1969 and Rule 11(1) to (7) of the State Rules, 2004
(b) The Registrar appointed under the provisions of the Act of
1969 has got powers for correction in relation to the entries and
the name also in the Registrar / Birth Certificate and such
correction or cancellation also comes within the purview of
powers under Section 15 of the Act of 1969.
(c) The competent authority appointed under the provisions of the
Act of 1969 has to consider whether the entry in the Birth
Certificate / Register can be corrected or not, after making inquiry
and after going through the relevant material, which may be
produced by the concerned applicant or which may be called by
competent authority for satisfying itself.
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.
26. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, if the facts as
discussed hereinabove are examined, it is revealed that respondent
No 2 has rejected the request of the petitioner simply relying
upon the Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar,
Births and Deaths and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat. It
is not in dispute that while rejecting the request of the petitioner,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8935/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
respondent No.2 has not carried out any inquiry nor examined the
documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. Therefore, the
said decision taken by respondent No.2 is required to be set
aside."
9. The documentary evidence which has been produced are
sufficient to strengthen the case of the petitioner that the
correct date of birth of the petitioner is 22.04.1982 and hence,
there cannot be and should not be any objection on the part
of the respondent authority to have undertaken the exercise of
correcting the date of birth. In view of the documents placed
on record, which are not in dispute, it would be in the fitness
of things if respondents are directed to consider the documents
and correct the date of birth as 22.04.1982 instead of
22.12.1982, at the earliest.
10. Considering the above, respondents are directed to carry
out necessary correction in the register of birth on the basis of
the documentary evidence and the affidavit of father of the
petitioner produced by the petitioner before this Court and
issue a fresh Birth Certificate showing the date of birth of the
petitioner as 22.04.1982, without being influenced by the order
dated 01.08.2024, at the earliest, but not later than two weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
11. The petition is accordingly, allowed. Direct service is
permitted.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
DRASHTI K. SHUKLA
