Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 84 (GUJ)

Pankajbhai Pramodrai Bhatt v. State of Gujarat

2008-02-18

C.K.BUCH

body2008
JUDGMENT : C.K. Buch, J. Heard Ms. Sonal Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. D.S. Pandit, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. Officers of the State who are respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 are present. Mr. Dhawal Nanavati, learned counsel has submitted that he has instructions to appear for respondent no.5 Vadodara Municipal Corporation and that he shall file his formal vakalatnama with the Registry within ten days from today. If such vakalatnama is tendered, the same may be accepted by the Registry irrespective of the present order. 2. Rule. Ms. D.S. Pandit learned AGP and Mr.Dhawal Nanavati, learned counsel waive service of Rule on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 and for respondent no.5 respectively. 3. At the request of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 4. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the records maintained by them as "30th December, 1969" instead of "31st October, 1967". It is claimed by the petitioner that his real date of birth is as reflected in the records maintained by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation, respondent no.5 and the Corporation has issued birth certificate accordingly. It is submitted that the register maintained under the Statute by the local self-government is more authenticated and reliable piece of evidence and therefore, the Court may hold that the birth date mentioned in the register maintained by the respondent no.5 Corporation is genuine and the petitioner may be granted reliefs as prayed. 5. Mr. Dhawal Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 Corporation, in response to the query raised by the Court, has fairly submitted that he has received telephonic instructions from the respondent no.5 Corporation and the Corporation has confirmed that the date of birth of the present petitioner Pankajbhai Pramodrai Bhatt is 30th December, 1969 as per the register maintained under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the rules framed thereunder. Copy of the birth certificate of the petitioner is at Annexure: A to the petition. 6. Copy of the birth certificate of the petitioner is at Annexure: A to the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has satisfactorily established before this Court by pointing out two other documents, namely Annexures:B & C that 31st October, 1967 is the birth date of Pradip Pramodrai Bhatt, elder brother of the petitioner. Copy of the birth certificate of Pradip Pramodrai Bhatt is at Annexure:B to the petition. It appears that the person who had gone to the school to get the petitioner admitted in the school initially, had perhaps wrongly mentioned the date of birth of the elder brother of the present petitioner as the date of birth of the petitioner and therefore, the date of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate of the present petitioner coincides with the actual date of birth of his elder brother. 7. Crucial question raised before the Court is whether this Court, in exercise of powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution can direct the school authorities to change the date of birth in the school register. While addressing this controversy, this Court, on the basis of the facts placed before this Court has decided that the date of birth in the school leaving certificate can be corrected by correcting the school record. In the case of Darshnaben Pravinbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and 3 others, this Court [Coram: D.N. Patel, J.], by order dated 7.3.2007 passed in Special Civil Application No. 27368 of 2006 ultimately decided the issue with a direction, that is, writ of mandamus to the concerned respondents to carry out necessary amendment in the school leaving certificate on the basis of the document, namely the birth certificate issued under the Registration of Births & Deaths Act, 1969. 8. This Court [Coram: C.K. Buch, J.] in Special Civil Application No. 12386 of 2007 by order dated 4-5.2.2008 has considered various aspects which are relevant to the issue raised by the present petitioner and has observed as under:- "Section 14 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 deals with the registration of name of child and Section 15 deals with the procedure as to correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. The State of Gujarat has framed relevant rules in the year 2004 exercising powers under Section 30 of the said Act and these Rules specifically take care of the Scheme of Section 15 of the Act. In the present case, as such there is no controversy before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and 4th Additional Senior Judge, Patan qua the details mentioned in the birth certificate issued to the present petitioner. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and 4th Additional Senior Judge, Patan is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction and on the strength of the observations made by the Letters Patent Bench, the Magistrate has rightly not exercised its jurisdiction in the present matter in absence of modalities and procedure provided under a statute or rules framed thereunder. The Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974 is in the form of guidelines framed under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 exercising powers under Section 54 of the said Act. It appears that learned Advocates appearing in the Letters Patent Appeal had not assisted the Division Bench properly while putting the entire legal situation before the Letters Patent Bench, otherwise, it was possible to make a detailed submission that in absence of any legal resolution in the relevant Regulations an aggrieved person can be sent to Civil Court for proper declaration and the High Court also can in exercise of powers vested with the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which helps the petitioner." 9. The Court is satisfied that the date of birth found in the school register and the school leaving certificate of the petitioner is not correct date of birth and the correct date of birth of the petitioner is the date reflected in the certificate at Annexure:A to the petition which is issued by the respondent no.5 Corporation. Therefore, all relevant school records are required to be corrected accordingly. Of course, the motor vehicle license issued to the present petitioner also bears the date which is found in the school leaving certificate. Therefore, for that purpose, the petitioner shall have to undertake different exercise with the respondent no.4 and obtain fresh license after payment of necessary fees and completing other formalities. 10. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Therefore, for that purpose, the petitioner shall have to undertake different exercise with the respondent no.4 and obtain fresh license after payment of necessary fees and completing other formalities. 10. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner now shall approach the primary school, which he had left last and Secondary School where he had studied, with certified copy of the original birth certificate issued by the respondent no.5 Corporation and shall request the school administration to correct the school register by replacing the date of birth of the petitioner from 31st October, 1967" to "30th December, 1969" and if the petitioner asks for the fresh school leaving certificate, the school administration shall supply him fresh school leaving certificate showing the corrected birth date. 11. The petitioner shall approach the respondent no.4 with a request to issue fresh license with the corrected date of birth on the basis of the birth certificate issued by the respondent no.5 Corporation and the respondent no.4 shall issue fresh license scrapping the original one in the name of the petitioner with corrected date of birth. The petitioner can use copy of this order to get his birth date changed or corrected which is not in accordance with the original date of birth as registered in the register maintained by the respondent no.5 Corporation. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Order and direction accordingly. Direct service is permitted. Petition Allowed.