Ujjal Bhuyan, J. -- This case was heard on 15.7.2014 and today is fixed for delivery of judgment. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 15.2.2012 passed by the Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education( CBSE), Regional office, Guwahati rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for change in the date of birth as recorded in the record of CBSE. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to correct his date of birth from 17.9.1991 to 17.9.1993. 3. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. 4. Petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition was a student of Class X in Don Bosco School, Panbazar, Guwahati (School). The School is affiliated to CBSE. As per CBSE Registration Certificate issued to the petitioner, his date of birth has been recorded as 17.9.1991. According to the parents of the petitioner, at the time of delivery of the petitioner which took place at their residence, Birth Certificate was not obtained. Since the birth took place at home, question of any Medical Certificate certifying the date of birth of the petitioner also did not arise. 5. Later on, when the parents discovered that 17.9.1991 is not the correct date of birth of the petitioner which is 17.9.1993 and such incorrect date of birth may have a bearing on the academic prospects of the petitioner, they approached the Executive Magistrate, Kamrup(Metropolitan) District, Guwahati for correction of the record. Executive Magistrate after conducting an enquiry issued an order on 3.9.2008 declaring that he was satisfied that the date of birth of the petitioner is 17.9.1993 and which may be recorded as 17.9.1993. Accordingly, Registrar of Births and Deaths was requested to take necessary action. Following order of the Executive Magistrate, Registrar of Births and Deaths, Guwahati Municipal Corporation issued a certificate of birth under Section 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 certifying that the date of birth of the petitioner is 17.9.1993. Parents of the petitioner thereafter requested the School authority to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the School record. Since no decision was taken, parents approached the Regional Officer, CBSE, Guwahati(respondent No.1) vide letter dated 20.4.2009 to take necessary decision in the matter. Though correspondences were made between the respondent No.1 and the School authorities, nothing positive came out. Since no decision was taken, parents approached the Regional Officer, CBSE, Guwahati(respondent No.1) vide letter dated 20.4.2009 to take necessary decision in the matter. Though correspondences were made between the respondent No.1 and the School authorities, nothing positive came out. 6. At that stage, petitioner moved this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.5473/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 12.12.2011 by directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order. 7. Ultimately, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order on 15.2.2012. Respondent No.1 after referring to bye law 69.2 of the Examination Bye- Laws of CBSE, 1995, as amended, held that no change in the date of birth once recorded in the record of CBSE shall be made and the date of birth in respect of the petitioner shall remain as 17.9.1991 in the documents issued by CBSE. 8. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 9. Contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 did not consider bye law 69.2 in its correct perspective. The bye law is applicable in case of correction in the date of birth recorded because of typographical errors or similar such mistakes. Here is a case where mistake is in the original Birth Certificate itself because of wrong information furnished, which has now been corrected by the competent authority. It is not a case of correction in the date of birth recorded but a change in the date of birth in the record of CBSE following such change made by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure laid down. Therefore, the impugned order dated 15.2.2012 does not appear to be justified. 10. This Court by order dated 12.10.2012 had issued notice and finally by order dated 16.6.2014 had admitted the writ petition for hearing. 11. Respondents have not filed affidavit. However, Mrs. R. Borah, learned counsel appearing for CBSE submitted at the time of hearing that the impugned order dated 15.2.2012 is self explanatory and therefore filing of affidavit is considered not necessary. 12. Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. R. Borah, learned counsel for respondent No.1( CBSE). 11. Respondents have not filed affidavit. However, Mrs. R. Borah, learned counsel appearing for CBSE submitted at the time of hearing that the impugned order dated 15.2.2012 is self explanatory and therefore filing of affidavit is considered not necessary. 12. Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. R. Borah, learned counsel for respondent No.1( CBSE). There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 i.e. School authority. 13. Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that following the procedure laid down in the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, necessary enquiry was made by the Magistrate, who thereafter passed an order declaring that the date of birth of the petitioner to be recorded is 17.9.1993 instead of 17.9.1991. Thereafter, Registrar of Births and Deaths, Guwahati Municipal Corporation made the consequential correction in the record and issued the Birth Certificate certifying the date of birth of the petitioner as 17.9.1993. He, therefore, submits that in view of change in the date of birth of the petitioner made by the competent authority under the statute, CBSE could not have been taken the decision to stick to the earlier date of birth of the petitioner entered in the School and CBSE records by wrongly referring to and relying on the provisions of bye law 69.2. He, therefore, submits that necessary direction may be issued to the respondents to change the date of birth of the petitioner from 17.9.1991 to 17.9.1993 following proper verification by the competent statutory authority. 14. Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner have been opposed by Mrs. R. Borah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1( CBSE). Her submission is that under bye law 69.2 no change in the date of birth once recorded in the record of CBSE, barring typographical errors, can be made. In the face of such express bar, CBSE could not have changed the date of birth of the petitioner from the date already recorded in the CBSE record. She submits that since CBSE has acted in accordance with the bye law, no direction may be issued to the CBSE to act in a manner which would be in violation of their bye laws. 15. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 16. It is not disputed that in the school record, petitioner's date of birth is recorded as 17.9.1991. 15. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 16. It is not disputed that in the school record, petitioner's date of birth is recorded as 17.9.1991. On that basis, in the CBSE registration, petitioner's date of birth has been mentioned as 17.9.1991. Exactly when and in what circumstances the parents of the petitioner realized that the date of birth of the petitioner as per school and CBSE records was wrong and instead it should be 17.9.1993 is not very clear from the materials placed on record. What is however clear is that the parents of the petitioner had approached the Magistrate for change in the date of his birth and it appears from the documents placed on record that the Magistrate after holding enquiry had declared that the date of birth of the petitioner should be 17.9.1993 instead of 17.9.1991. Following order of the Magistrate, Registrar of Births and Deaths issued the consequential certificate under Section 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, certifying the date of birth of the petitioner as 17.9.1993. 17. Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is a central legislation providing for regulation of registration of births and deaths and any matters connected therewith. As per Section 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Act), the Registrar who is appointed under Section 7 of the Act, as soon as registration of birth or death as the case may be has been completed, give, free of charge, to the person who give information under Section 8 or Section 9 an extract of the prescribed particulars under his hand from the register relating to such birth or death. Section 13 of the Act deals with delayed registration of births and deaths. Sub-section(3) of Section 13 is relevant for the purpose of the present case which provides that any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after certifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. Section 15 of the Act which is also relevant deals with correction or cancellation of the entry in the register of births and deaths. Section 15 of the Act which is also relevant deals with correction or cancellation of the entry in the register of births and deaths. It provides that 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 the Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may ,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. As per Section 17(2) of the Act, all extracts given shall be certified by the Registrar and shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the birth or death to which the entry relates. 18. A conjoint reading of the provisions laid down in Sections 12, 13(3), 15 and 17(2) of the Act, shows that power is vested on the Registrar to make correction in the date of birth or death and also to make belated registration of birth or death on the basis of an order of the Magistrate who shall make necessary verification and on payment of the prescribed fee. Such certification by the Registrar is admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the birth or death to which the entry relates. 19. Bye law 69.2 of the CBSE Examination Bye-laws, 1995 bars change of date of birth once recorded in the CBSE's record except to correct typographical errors so as to make the certification consistent with the school record. Such correction shall be made only on orders of the Chairman who must be satisfied that it is a case of typographical error. However, such correction should not be made after submission of application form in terms of Examination Bye-laws of CBSE. 20. Delhi High Court in two cases, namely, Kumari Meenu Vs. Director of CBSE and Anr. and Kumari Para vs. Director, Central Board of Secondary Education, the later case being reported in AIR 2004 Delhi 310, while examining the scope of the aforesaid provisions had held that in case of a conflict between the dates given in documents, the documents which are issued under the Act have to be given effect to. 21. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court. 21. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court. When the statute provides for correction of date of birth as well as for belated registration by following a particular procedure and the competent statutory authority having satisfied itself that the date of birth of the petitioner is 17.9.1993 consequent upon which the petitioner got his date of birth altered by following the due procedure, in my considered view , the same should be given effect to. Moreover, nobody has questioned the correctness of the enquiry made by the Magistrate or the certificate issued by the Registrar certifying the date of birth of the petitioner as 17.9.1993. It is true that bye law 69.2 bars change/correction in the date of birth once recorded in the CBSE record except correction of typographical errors, the same has to be read in a manner that it does not act as a barrier in giving effect to a statutory provision. In any case, in case of any conflict between the statutory provision and the bye law, the statutory provision has to prevail. 22. That being the position, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference by this Court. Impugned order dated 15.2.2012 passed by respondent No.1 is accordingly quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the CBSE's Registration Certificate and other record as 17.9.1993 instead of 17.9.1991. 23. Writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.