JUDGMENT : Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Y.C. Pandya, learned Advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. 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 finally decided. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with the following prayers: "9 (a) That Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order/communication dated 2-4-2014 of the respondent authority and thereby direct the respondent to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 1-11-1980 instead of 12-11-1980 in the register and her birth certificate issued by the respondent authority forthwith; (b) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order/communication dated 2-4-2014 and direct the respondent authority to correct the birth date of the petitioner as 1-11-1980 instead of 12-11-1980 mentioned in the birth certificate issued by the respondent; (c) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, according to the petitioner, she was born on 1-11-1980, at Gandhinagar. However, inadvertently, her date of birth, in the birth certificate, has been wrongly recorded as 12-11-1980. The case of the petitioner is that, while getting admission in school, her correct date of birth, that is, 1-11-1980 was mentioned. Hence, her School Leaving Certificate shows her correct date of birth. All the other official documents of the petitioner, including her H.S.C. examination mark-sheet, PAN card, passport, driving licence and Election card, reflect her correct date of birth. The petitioner has also produced an affidavit of her mother, stating her correct date of birth. As the petitioner is to emigrate abroad, she is required to submit a birth certificate, along with other documents. She, therefore, applied to the respondent authority to issue her a birth certificate. However, on receipt of the birth certificate the petitioner realised that her date of birth has not been correctly mentioned. Due to the discrepancy in the date of birth, the petitioner is facing difficulty in the immigration process. 3. She, therefore, applied to the respondent authority to issue her a birth certificate. However, on receipt of the birth certificate the petitioner realised that her date of birth has not been correctly mentioned. Due to the discrepancy in the date of birth, the petitioner is facing difficulty in the immigration process. 3. The petitioner preferred an application to the respondent to correct the entry in the Register of Births and Deaths vide an application dated 28-3-2014. Along with the application, the petitioner annexed various documents such as her Government School Leaving Certificate, Mount Carmel School leaving certificate, PAN card, passport, driving licence, driving licence of the United State of America, Secondary Board certificate, marriage certificate, I.E.L.T.S. certificate and judgment of this Court dated 13-7-2011, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5652 of 2011. 4. The respondent rejected the application of the petitioner by stating in the impugned order dated 2-4-2014 that she has not produced the original Birth certificate and the certificate of the doctor. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing present petition. 6. The respondent has filed an affidavit-in-reply, wherein a stand is taken, that the petitioner has not come out with Necessary declarations from two credible persons who could testify and produce convincing evidence showing the date of birth of petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner has not "disclosed" that her name has been changed to the present one. 7. The averments made in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit-in-reply are as below: "5. I say and submit that, the powers of the Registrar, Birth and Death are guided by reason and reasonableness use of which is not seemingly necessary. I obviously find missing in the record any explanation so far produced by the petitioner any such warrant/need. 6. I say and submit that the exercise of my powers was never arbitrary nor mala fide as alleged by the petitioner because the date of birth sought to be corrected is not materially affecting the interest of the petitioner prejudicially and after this much of inordinate delay which has not been explained by the petitioner either to my office directly or even this Hon'ble Court because the purpose behind this certificate of corrected birth date has not been shown and the room for suspicion is left." 8. The stand taken in Paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply is that the interest of petitioner would not be prejudicially effected by not changing her date of birth and there is an inordinate delay which has not been explained by the petitioner. Moreover, the purpose for which the certificate of the corrected birth date is required, is also not shown, therefore, "the room for suspicion is left". 9. Mr. Nikunt K. Raval, learned Advocate for Ms. Dilbur Contractor, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that the respondent authority has the power to make the necessary corrections in the record pertaining to date of birth of the petitioner, as has been held by this Court in several judgments, including that in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2008 (1) GLR 884 . It is further submitted that one of the reasons for rejection of the application of the petitioner is that, the petitioner has not produced the certificate of the doctor. However, the doctor in whose private clinic, the petitioner was born, is now dead and the clinic has been closed down. Therefore, there is no way in which the petitioner can obtain the doctor's certificate. That the petitioner has submitted a copy of her birth certificate to the respondent authority, on which the incorrect date of birth has been reflected. The petitioner has also submitted several other documents such as her PAN card, driving licences (of India and the U.S.A.), passport and School Leaving Certificate, that reflect her correct date of birth. Not only that, but the petitioner has also produced the affidavit of her mother. The respondent, therefore, ought to have exercised the power vested in him on the basis of the documents produced on record. Even if the respondent was desirous of making a further inquiry by taking statements of concerned persons, nothing prevented from him doing so. However, on the flimsy ground, that the certificate of the doctor has not been produced, the application of the petitioner ought not to have been rejected. 10. Mr. Y.C. Pandya, learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the copy of birth certificate produced by the petitioner has been issued in the year 2013. The petitioner has not produced the original birth certificate. 10. Mr. Y.C. Pandya, learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the copy of birth certificate produced by the petitioner has been issued in the year 2013. The petitioner has not produced the original birth certificate. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the averments made in Paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-reply, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not come out with necessary declarations from two credible persons, who could testify before the authority and there is no convincing evidence showing that the birth date of the petitioner was other than that shown in the birth register. Learned Advocate for the respondent has further submitted that the petitioner has not shown that her original name has been changed to the present one. 11. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition and the documents on record, including the impugned order. 12. At the outset, this Court takes note of the reasons mentioned in the impugned order for the rejection of the application of the petitioner, in juxtaposition with the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply. It is obvious from a combined perusal thereof, that the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, are far beyond the reasons for rejection of the application as stated in the impugned order. Only two reasons have been given in the impugned order, which are: (i) that the petitioner has not produced her birth certificate, and (ii) the certificate of the doctor has not been produced. These two reasons find no mention in the affidavit-in-reply. The respondent has attempted to go beyond the impugned order by stating reasons such as the petitioner has not come out with necessary declarations from two credible persons who could testify before the authority and convincing evidence showing that birth date of the petitioner was other than that shown in the birth register and that her original name has been changed to the present one. These reasons find no mention in the impugned order. In any case, the change of the name of petitioner is not the subject-matter of the petition. Therefore, it has no relevance to the issue at hand. 13. These reasons find no mention in the impugned order. In any case, the change of the name of petitioner is not the subject-matter of the petition. Therefore, it has no relevance to the issue at hand. 13. If respondent was of the opinion that a further inquiry is required in the matter or affidavits to be taken from any person(s), it was the statutory duty of the respondent to proceed to do so. It appears from the material on record that the documents produced by the petitioner, namely two School Leaving Certificates, PAN card, passport, driving licences, Secondary Board certificate, marriage certificate, (in which name of the petitioner after her marriage is reflected), and the judgment of this Court, have not been considered. There is no mention of the above documents in the impugned order. 14. By way of the affidavit-in-reply, the respondent is making an attempt to supplement the impugned order by giving reasons which are not mentioned therein. It is a settled position of law, that the reasons stated in the impugned order cannot be supplemented, or fresh reasons given subsequently, by filing an affidavit-in-reply. This Court has enunciated the above principle of law in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851 . The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein under: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (supra). "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (supra). "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 15. The petitioner has stated on oath in the petition that the doctor in whose private clinic, she was born, is no longer alive. The petitioner, therefore, is unable to obtain a certificate from him. The private clinic of that doctor has been also closed down. The respondent cannot expect the petitioner to produce a certificate from a doctor who is no longer alive. 16. Insofar as the birth certificate is concerned, the petitioner has produced a copy of her birth certificate, issued as per record maintained by the respondent, in the year 2013. Learned Advocate for the respondent, has submitted that this birth certificate has been issued in the year 2013, and is not the original birth certificate, therefore, it cannot be considered. This submission is found to be without any merit as the certificate merely reflects what is entered in the Register of Births. Merely because the birth certificate has been issued in the year 2013, it would not alter the record of the birth of the petitioner, as maintained by the respondent. 17. The averments made in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit-in-reply, as reproduced hereinabove, are not only a deviation from the issue at hand, but are also unworthy of acceptance. The allegation of "room for suspicion regarding the petitioner, is unnecessary. Moreover, delay is not a factor that can prevent the respondent from exercising the jurisdiction vested in him, as Sec. 15 of the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation. 18. The allegation of "room for suspicion regarding the petitioner, is unnecessary. Moreover, delay is not a factor that can prevent the respondent from exercising the jurisdiction vested in him, as Sec. 15 of the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation. 18. At this stage, the relevant provisions of Sec. 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short), as well as the procedure to be adopted by the respondent authority, as contained in the Rule 11 or the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004 ('the Rules for short), may be noticed. Section 15 of the Act, reads as below: "Sec 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 corrected, 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." 19. Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004, reads as below: "Rule 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 authorized by the Chief Registrar by general or special order in this behalf under Sec. 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 Sec. 8 or Sec. 9 of the Act." 20. A perusal of sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 of the Rules, makes it clear that it is the duty of the Registrar to correct an erroneous entry in the Register of Births and Deaths in the manner prescribed by Sec. 15 of the Act and Rule 11, 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. 21. 21. In the present case, it does not appear from the record that the petitioner was given a chance to produce any further documents or declarations. The petitioner has produced an affidavit of her mother. If, the respondent was of the view that further evidence is required, it was the duty of the respondent to call upon the petitioner to produce the necessary evidence. Without doing so, it is not open to the respondent to reject the application of the petitioner. 22. At this stage, the principles of law enunciated by this Court in Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2008 (1) GLR 884 , may be noticed. This Court 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 Sec. 28 of the Repealed Act of 1886 and provisions contained in Sees. 29 and 31 of the Act of 1969, by which erstwhile provision of correction/cancellation of entries in the Register of Births and Deaths, which is not in derogation, remained alive in Sec. 15 of the new Act, and therefore, the authority is empowered to correct erroneous entries in the Register of Births and Deaths, 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, Clauses 9.6 and 9.7 of the Handbook of Registrar General, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government 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 Births and Deaths to correct any erroneous entry in form or substance or any entry which has been fraudulently or improperly made. (C) Section 15 of the Act of 1969 empowers Registrar of Births and Deaths 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, Clauses 9.6 and 9.7 of Chapter 9 of the Handbook of Registrar General, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government 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 and 231 of 2001 in the case of Mulla Faizal & Faxilabanu Suleman Ibrahim and Registrar, Births and Deaths Rajkot Municipal Corporation (supra), there is no doubt that the expression erroneous in form or substance in Sec. 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 Sec. 15 of Act of 1969 and Rules 11(1) to (7) of the State Rules, 2004. (E) When the authority empowered to exercise power under Sec. 15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the State Rules, 2004, refuse to do so, writ petition is maintainable under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate directions to the authority. (E) When the authority empowered to exercise power under Sec. 15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the State Rules, 2004, refuse to do so, writ petition is maintainable under Art. 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.............." 23. This judgment would be applicable to the present case as well. 24. The reasons given by the respondent in affidavit-in-reply are extraneous to the impugned order, and therefore, are not convincing to the Court. 25. For the reasons stated hereinabove, following order is passed: 26. The impugned order dated 2-4-2014 is quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner afresh, by taking into consideration the available material on record including the affidavit of the mother of petitioner, or calling for any other necessary material if found necessary. The respondent shall not insist on obtaining a certificate from the doctor in whose private clinic the petitioner was born, as it is stated in the petition that the said doctor is dead and the clinic is closed. After following the due procedure of law as per Sec. 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004, the respondent shall pass an order upon the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and not later than a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. The petition is partly allowed in above terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly.