JUDGMENT : Abhilasha Kumari, J. Rule. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 (Talati-cum-Mantri, Kotha Gram Panchayat) has been served by direct service on 14.10.2014, but has not chosen to put in an appearance till date. Therefore, as it appears that the said respondent is not interested in contesting the petition, there is no requirement of issuing notice of Rule to him. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally. 2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayers: "(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit the Special Civil Application (B) Be please to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction upon respondent authority by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 05.08.2014, Annexure D, and further by directing respondent authority to correct the Birth Certificate of the petitioner by showing his birth date as 15.08.1997. (C) Pending admission, disposal and final hearing of the above numbered writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant ad interim relief by directing the respondent to correct the Birth Certificate of the petitioner by showing his birth date as 15.08.1997. (D) Such other(s) and further relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to be granted in the interest of justice" 3. The petitioner is a minor and has filed the present petition though his father. It is the case of the petitioner that he was born on 15.08.1997. At that point of time, the name and other particulars of the petitioner were got recorded in the Register of Births and Deaths by a relative. By an inadvertent bona fide mistake, the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 01.10.1997 in the Birth Certificate, instead of 15.08.1997. However, in all the other certificates of the petitioner, such as the School Leaving Certificate, the correct date of birth of the petitioner, that is, 15.08.1997, has been recorded. By an inadvertent bona fide mistake, the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 01.10.1997 in the Birth Certificate, instead of 15.08.1997. However, in all the other certificates of the petitioner, such as the School Leaving Certificate, the correct date of birth of the petitioner, that is, 15.08.1997, has been recorded. In view of the above discrepancy in the date of birth, the father of the petitioner made an application dated 16.07.2014, to respondent No.2, who is the Competent Authority under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 ("the Act" for short). By the impugned Certificate/order dated 05.08.2014, the application of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that it is only after obtaining an order of the Court that the correction can be made. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Mr. J.S. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned certificate/order issued by respondent No.2 deserves to be quashed and set aside as the said respondent has not exercised the jurisdiction vested upon him to correct an erroneous date in the Birth Certificate. As such, the said respondent has failed to discharge his statutory duties and to exercise the power conferred upon him by way of the statute, which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. 5. It is submitted that this issue is no longer res integra and this Court has, in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. (The) State of Gujarat and Ors., 2008(1) GLH 556 , held that when the Competent Authority fails to exercise the powers conferred by the statute, a writ of mandamus can certainly be issued to such authority to act in accordance with the provisions of the statute. It is, therefore, submitted that the prayers made in the petition be granted. 6. Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that in view of the principles of law enunciated in the judgment of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. (The) State of Gujarat and Ors. (supra), the Court may pass an appropriate order. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition and documents annexed thereto, including the impugned certificate/order. (supra), the Court may pass an appropriate order. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition and documents annexed thereto, including the impugned certificate/order. In this context, it would be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, which confers the power of correction or cancellation of an entry in the Register of Births and Deaths. The said provision reads as below: "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 correct 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." 8. In addition thereto, reference may be made to Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004, which lays down the procedure for correction or cancellation of an entry in the Register of Births and Deaths. This rule is reproduced as below: "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 enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, he shall correct the error (by correcting or cancelling the 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 fraudulently or improperly, he shall make a report giving necessary details to the officer authorised 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 cancelled 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." 9. A combined perusal of Section 15 and Rule 11, as reproduced above, leaves no manner of doubt that respondent No.2 is vested with the power to make a correction in an entry in the Register of Births and Deaths and, therefore, in the Birth Certificate. 10. In Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. (The) State of Gujarat and Ors. (supra), this Court has exhaustively dealt with the refusal of the Competent Authority to exercise power in cases similar to the present one and has held as below: "26. 10. In Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. (The) State of Gujarat and Ors. (supra), this Court has exhaustively dealt with the refusal of the Competent Authority to exercise power in cases similar to the present one and has held as below: "26. Thus in the nutshell, what emerges from the factual and legal submissions made and conclusions arrived in earlier paragraph is as under: (A) In view of the provisions of Section 28 of the Repealed Act of 1886 and provisions contained in Sections 29 and 31 of the Act of 1969, by which erstwhile provision of correction/cancellation of entries in the register of birth and death, which is not in derogation, remained alive in Section 15 of the new Act and, therefore, the authority is empowered to correct erroneous entries in the register of birth and death, even in a case where registration was made prior to 1.4.1970 i.e. the date on which new Act of 1969 came into force and correction of error is sought for later on. (B) Section 15 of the Act of 1969 read with Rule 11 of the State Rules, 2004 along with Chapter 9, Clause 9.6 and 9.7 of the Handbook of Registrar General, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India and Clause 5.8 of Chapter 5 of guidelines contained in vernacular Gujarati adequately conferred power upon the authority to correct/cancel erroneous entries and provide for complete mechanism for types of errors to be corrected. (C) Section 15 of the Act of 1969 empowers Registrar of Birth and Death to correct any erroneous entry in form or substance or any entry which has been fraudulently or improperly made. Rule 11 of Rules, 2004 and particularly Sub-Rule 1 provide for any entry, any error which may be clerical or formal and Sub-Rule 4 of the above Rule 11 mention about any entry which may be erroneous in substance and Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 11 refer to any entry which is fraudulently or improper is to be corrected by the Registrar and an elaborate procedure is provided which prescribe method and manner in which such entry to be corrected or cancelled and report to be made to the higher authority, which may rule out in misuse of power by registering authorities. Thus, clause 9.6 and 9.7 of Chapter 9 of the Handbook of Registrar General, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. Thus, clause 9.6 and 9.7 of Chapter 9 of the Handbook of Registrar General, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India provide for corrections and cancellations of entries and contain clerical or formal error, error in substance or fraudulent or improper entry and once any error in substance is to be corrected, it covers error of such nature which is an error of substance or form. That similar types of errors are mentioned in Clause 5.8 of Chapter 5 of vernacular guidelines published by the State Authorities under the Act. (D) The above proposition of law stand fortified by the decisions of this Court in two Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 195/1999 and 231/2001 in the case of Mulla Faizal & Faxilabanu Suleman Ibrahim and Registrar, Birth and Death Rajkot Municipal Corporation (Supra), there is no doubt that the expression "erroneous in form or substance" in Section 15 of Act of 1969 is an expression of vide amplitude and does not confine to simple typing errors or clerical mistakes and no guidelines or circulars can take away powers of the Register of making correction in entries which are erroneous in form or substance in register as envisaged under Section 15 of Act of 1969 and Rule 11 (1) to (7) of the State Rules, 2004. (E) When the authority empowered to exercise power under Section 15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the State Rules, 2004, refuse to do so, writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate directions to the authority. (F) The kind and types of directions to be issued to the authority depend on facts and circumstances of the each case and nature of denial of legal right to the aggrieved persons by the authority. (G) That even Section 27 of the Act of 1969 is pertaining to delegation of powers and Section 32 empowers to concerned Government to remove the difficulties and, therefore, the appropriate Government or any authority upon whom the powers are delegated can act in accordance with scheme of the Act and appropriate directions can be given accordingly. (H) So far as matters arising out of the Regulation 12(A) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulation, 1974 is concerned, law as on date is governed as in the case of Soorat Jessomal Khanchandani (supra) and Thakore Nilesh Shishirbhai (supra). (H) So far as matters arising out of the Regulation 12(A) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulation, 1974 is concerned, law as on date is governed as in the case of Soorat Jessomal Khanchandani (supra) and Thakore Nilesh Shishirbhai (supra). (I) So far as the matters arising out of the Passport Act, 1967 and Rules, 2000, is concerned, law as on date is governed as in the case of Regional Passport Officer (supra) in view of admission of L.P.A. No.1673/2006 by an order dated 30.7.2007 by which the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2716/2006 is stayed." (emphasis supplied) 11. The principles of law enunciated in the above-quoted judgment would squarely apply in the present case. It is disheartening to note that even though this Court has, on various occasions, rendered a plethora of judgments setting aside the orders whereby the Competent Authority has refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by the statute, the same kind of stereotyped orders are being passed time and again, refusing to exercise the power vested by law. It would, therefore, be appropriate to direct the State Government to take appropriate steps, so that the judgments rendered by this Court in this regard are brought to the notice of the competent authorities under the Act so as to put an end to continuous multifarious litigation on an issue that has already been decided. Respondent No.1 is, therefore, directed accordingly. 12. Insofar as the impugned order/Certificate in the present petition is concerned, it is clear from a perusal thereof that respondent No.2 has simply refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by the statute, by conveniently putting the onus on the Court. When the statute has conferred power upon the said respondent, it is incumbent upon him to exercise it judiciously and in accordance with law. There is no justifiable reason why respondent No.2 has refused to act in accordance with law and decide the application of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order/certificate deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order/Certificate dated 05.08.2014, is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the application made by the father of the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. 13. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order/Certificate dated 05.08.2014, is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the application made by the father of the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. 14. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no orders as to costs. Petition Partly allowed.