JUDGMENT : K.A. Puj, J. Rule. Mr. Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader wavies service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.3 and Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.4. 2. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 9.12.2008 passed by the Chief District Health Officer, Nadiad, whereby the petitioner's application to effect change in the Register of Birth and Death was rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for the direction to the respondent authorities to consider case of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner in the Birth Certificate showing her date of birth as 7.2.1955 instead of 8.3.1955. This Court has issued notice on 29.1.2009 and notice was duly served to all these respondents. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was born on 7.2.1995 at Nadiad, Dist. Kheda. The said fact of birth of the petitioner was registered with the competent authority belatedly on 10.3.1955 by some family members of the petitioner showing her birth on 8.3.1955 instead of her correct date of birth which is 7.2.1955. On the basis of this entry in the Register, Birth Certificate was issued wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 8.3.1955 instead of 7.2.1955. 5. The correct details with regard to the birth date of the petitioner were supplied to the school authorities and even school leaving certificate of the petitioner shows her date of birth as 7.2.1955. Even in all important documents like, passport, school leaving certificate etc. date of birth of the petitioner is correctly mentioned as 7.2.1955. 6. For obtaining visa, the petitioner was informed to provide certain documents and in the said process of gathering documents the petitioner came to know about such discrepancy in the date of birth mentioned in the Certificate of Birth. date of birth of the petitioner is correctly mentioned as 7.2.1955. 6. For obtaining visa, the petitioner was informed to provide certain documents and in the said process of gathering documents the petitioner came to know about such discrepancy in the date of birth mentioned in the Certificate of Birth. The petitioner approached the Chief District Health Officer for making necessary corrections in the date of birth of the petitioner in the Certificate of Birth along with a detailed representation and affidavit of two elderly members of the family but the same was not considered. The petitioner is, therefore, constrained to file present petition before this Court. 7. Heard Mr. Murali Devnani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3, Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.4. The issue raised by the petitioner in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors, reported in 2008 (1) GLR 884 , wherein detail discussion is made about the competence of various authorities and about the entire administrative set-up for registration of Birth and Death in the State. A chart is given in the judgment itself and as per this administrative set-up, the Chief District Health Officer/District Health Officer is competent to issue certificate and/or effect any change in the Birth and Death Certificate. The Court has disposed of several petitions by issuing necessary directions in the said judgment. In the concluding para it is observed that, in light of the discussion and observations made in the judgment, the respondents are directed to exercise power vested into under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and Rule 11 of 2004 pursuant to the application preferred by the petitioners for correction as prayed for by each of the applicants and as per application submitted before the concerned authority, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 8. 8. In view of the aforesaid directions, since the application is already made by the petitioner to the Chief District Health Officer and the same was rejected on erroneous premises, the Chief District Health Officer is hereby directed to consider the application afresh and make necessary correction in the Birth and Death Register by substituting the date of birth of the petitioner as 7.2.1955 in place of 8.3.1955 within six weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court or from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier. 9. Subject to the aforesaid directions, this petition is accordingly disposed off. Rule is made absolute to the above extent without any order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. Petition allowed.