Biren Vaishnav, J
(1) Rule. Learned AGP Ms. Shah waives service of notice of Rule for respondent Nos.1 and 2 while Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate waives service
of notice of Rule for respondent No.3.
(2) Heard Mr. Rishabh R. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shrunjal Shah, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 while Mr. H. S.
Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Perused the record.
(3) In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the name of the petitioner be changed from Muniben to
Anitaben and the petitioner’s father name be changed from Jagjivandas to Jagjivan Bhai and issue fresh Birth Certificates.
(4) Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on documents annexed to the petition namely; the passport and the school leaving certificate
which indicate that the name of the petitioner is Anita Ben and the father’s name too is Jagjivan Bhai. Reliance is placed on an order dated
09.03.2022 of this Court in SCA No.4557 of 2021.
(5) Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondent â€" Gram Panchayat would oppose the petition and submit that since the application is received
more than 40 years after the registration of birth, no change can be made.
(6) The coordinate bench of this Court by an order dated 20.02.2018 in SCA No.11841 of 2017 held as under:
“4. Learned Advocate Mr. Soni has referred to the background of the facts and also the impugned order at AnnexureA passed by the
TalaticumMantri. He referred to the impugned order and submitted that the authority below has failed to consider the judgment of the High Court in
case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. The State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2008(1) GLH 556. Learned advocate Mr. Soni also referred to the
provisions of Section 15 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act read with Rule 11(4) and 11(5) of the Gujarat Registration of Birth and Death
Rules 2004.
5. Learned AGP Mr. Parikh however resisted and submitted that as stated in the earlier judgment, the judgment may not have any application as there
is no inadvertent mistake. Learned AGP Mr. Parikh has also referred to the Circular issued by the government and submitted that still the petitioner
may make the representation in light of the Circular.
6. As could be seen from the background of the facts, the petitioner has produced the documentary evidence along with the evidence. The
documentary evidence in the form of School Leaving Certificate and passport etc. record the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.05.1954 and
therefore the prayer made for correction of date of birth as 01.05.1954 instead of 10.04.1954 as recorded in the birth certificate deserve consideration
by the authority.
7. The provisions of Section 15 of Registration of Birth and Death Act provide for such correction. The Judgment of the High Court in case of
Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel (supra) clearly suggest about such correction could be made if the Registrar is satisfied on the basis of material and
document produced on record. Therefore, a close look at the provisions of the Act read with the Rules require to be considered. Rule 11(5) of the
Birth and Registration Rules provide:
“(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.â€
Similarly, Section 11(4) of the Rules provide;
“If any person asserts that any any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in the
same 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.â€
8. Therefore the provisions of Section 15 of the Act read with the Rules as stated above makes the position clear that it is for the Registrar to reach
such satisfaction and make necessary correction on verification of the document produced before him. In other words, it is for the Registrar to arrive
at the satisfaction based on the documentary evidence and thereafter he can make the correction. Thus, the Registrar is vested with such powers
which he can exercise and therefore there is no lack of jurisdiction or the power. Thus, when the statute cast an obligation upon the Registrar to make
such changes depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and in the background of the material and evidence that may be produced, it
cannot be said that there is no provision, and the Registrar cannot correct the date of birth once it is recorded in the birth register. In fact the
provisions of Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 11(4) and 11(5) of the Rules give power to the Registrar to make such correction or modification
after having been satisfied on the basis of the documentary evidence that may be produced before him. In other words this is a power coupled with
the obligation that he has to reach such satisfaction on the basis of material that may be produced. Moreover as stated by learned AGP, there is also a
Circular issued by the Government.
9. Therefore, the interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is directed to make fresh representation with necessary supporting documents or
the petition itself may be treated as a representation which shall be made to the Respondent No.3 within a period of one week. The Respondent No.3
shall consider the same within a period of eight weeks as per the the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act and the Rules as stated
above as well as in light of the decision of this Court in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel (supra) as well as the decision of the Division Bench in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 497 of 2012 dated 10.05.2012, after being satisfied and shall take the decision within a period of four weeks thereafter
regarding correction
10. The petition is allowed. The impugned communication at AnnexureA is hereby quashed and set aside. It is also made clear that the observation
that the decision of this High Court would not have any application, cannot be accepted in light of the discussion herein above and Respondent No.3 as
stated above is under statutory obligation by the statute to make necessary verification and correct the date of birth if he is satisfied on the basis of the
documentary evidence.
11. The present petition stands disposed of to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Direct serviced permitted.â€
(7) In view of above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to carry out necessary corrections in the birth certificate based on the
documents i.e. the passport and the school leaving certificate and change the name of the petitioner to Anitaben and that of her father’s name to
Jagjivan Bhai after necessary verification within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(8) Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted. No costs.
