JUDGMENT K. J. THAKER, J. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 18.3.2013, passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1017 of 2013, whereby, the learned single Judge has allowed the petition and has directed that the name of the son of the petitioner be reflected as Om Hina Trivedi instead of Om Nareshbhai Jani. Since in this appeal the interim relief in terms of Para-5(B) was granted. 2. The brief facts as narrated in the petition are that respondent No.2-original petitioner got married on 9.12.1998 at Gandhinagar with Nareshkumar Jayantilal Jani, but due to constant fights and irreconcilable differences, respondent No.2 and her husband lived separately after few months of marriage and the respondent No.2 has lived at her parents place in Ahmedabad since then and out of the wedlock a son named Om was born on 22.11.1999 and the name of the respondent No. 2s son has been mentioned as Om Hina Trivedi in school records and on 2.12.2011, Nareshkumar Jayantilal Jani passed away at Chotila, Umiyanagar. Thereafter, on 9.8.2012, respondent No.2 applied to the appellant for change of name of child to Om Hina Trivedi, which was rejected on 30.8.2012. Against the said action, the present respondent No.2-original petitioner approached this Court by way of filing petition being S.C.A. No.1017 of 2013. The learned single Judge vide impugned order dated 18.3.2013 allowed the said petition. Hence, this appeal. 3. The findings recorded by the learned single Judge in paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 reads as under: 7. It is required to be mentioned that the Judicial Magistrate First Class is empowered to verify the correctness of the date of birth on oath before making such correction, and therefore, normally the Court would not entertain such petition. However, in the facts of the present case, it is merely a substitution of the name of the mother which has also been recorded in the original birth certificate, and therefore, when the authority empowered has declined to entertain the request, appropriate direction can be issued to the authority. 8. However, in the facts of the present case, it is merely a substitution of the name of the mother which has also been recorded in the original birth certificate, and therefore, when the authority empowered has declined to entertain the request, appropriate direction can be issued to the authority. 8. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court referring to the provisions of Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969 read with the Rules and it has been observed referring to Rule 12 that the authority are enjoined with the duty to entertain such application for correction in the register. Further, having regard to the observations made by the High Court in a judgment reported in 2008 (1) GLH 556 : (AIR 2008 (NOC) 1876 (Guj) Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. (The) State of Gujarat and Ors. and in a judgment reported in 2011 (2) G.L.H. 455 : ( AIR 2011 Guj 190 ) Manoj Omprakash Goel v. State of Gujarat through Secretary and Anr., the present Petition deserves to be allowed and the prayer in terms of paragraph 9(A) deserves to be granted. 9. The present petition accordingly stands allowed. The impugned order / communication dated 30.8.2012 by the Respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondent No.2 is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the birth certificate or the entry in the register of Births and Deaths so as to correct the name of the son of the Petitioner as Om Hina Trivedi as prayed, in place of the father. Rule is made absolute. 4. Heard. We have gone through the record and it appears that the authorities are relocating the parties from one Court to another Court so as to get her self proclaim as Guardian when it is proved and that she is the mother of the child-Om. The learned single Judge after referring the catena of the decisions passed the direction. By issuing a mandamus, a communication dated 30.8.2012 has been rightly quashed. At page-19, the death certificate of her husband-Naresh Kumar, who passed away on 2.12.2011 is already there. Despite that Dr.A.A.Begad, Registrar, Birth-Death Section, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has taken a very fancy stand that they were not under the provision of the Act for correcting the same. 5. By issuing a mandamus, a communication dated 30.8.2012 has been rightly quashed. At page-19, the death certificate of her husband-Naresh Kumar, who passed away on 2.12.2011 is already there. Despite that Dr.A.A.Begad, Registrar, Birth-Death Section, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has taken a very fancy stand that they were not under the provision of the Act for correcting the same. 5. On the contrary, he should have taken a practical approach and ought to have done the needful. He has relied on the opinion of the Deputy Chief Registrar (Birth-Death-Marriage) and Additional Director (Statistics), Gandhinagar and has now felt aggrieved the order passed by this Court. The mandamus issued by this Court is not required to be interfered by us. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The appellants are directed to do the needful at the earliest within a period of three weeks, failing which the respondents shall be entitled to take all steps available, even under the Contempt of Courts Act. 7. Since, the appeal is disposed of, civil application does not survive and the same stands DISPOSED OF, accordingly. Appeal dismissed.