JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. In present petition, under Articles 226 and 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that :- “7B Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned action of the respondents particularly the respondent no.3 who is under the supervision and control of the respondent no.1 & 2 and in turn that of the respondent no.4 for not correcting the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.3.1987 as per his birth certificate at Annex. A in place of his birth date as 5.3.1987 in his school leaving certificate at Annex. B and in his existing passport at Annex. C to this petition and be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to have all his subsequent documents bearing his correct date of birth as 15.3.1987 as per his birth certificate at Annex. A which is a primary document with respect to his date of birth; 7C. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents particularly the respondent no.3 who is under supervision and control of the respondent no. 1 and 2 and in turn the respondent no. 4 to immediately consider the case of the petitioner for correcting his date of birth as 15.3.1987 as per his birth certificate at Annex. A in his school leaving certificate at Annex. B and in his existing passport at Annex.C to this petition in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case;” 2. The facts involved in and leading to submission of present petition are mentioned by the petitioner in paragraph Nos. 2.1 to 2.5, which read thus:- “2.1 That the petitioner is a son of Kapadia Salimbhai Abdulrehman and Salmaben Salimbhai Kapadia who are also nationals and citizens of India and are also residing at Bharuch. The petitioner was born on 15.3.1987 at Nadiad and a Birth Certificate to that effect is issued by Sub Registrar, birth and death, Nadiad Nagarpalika, Nadiad. Therefore, the correct birth date of the petitioner is 15.3.1987. Annexed hereto and marked as “Annexure-A” is the copy of Birth Certificate of the petitioner. The petitioner was born on 15.3.1987 at Nadiad and a Birth Certificate to that effect is issued by Sub Registrar, birth and death, Nadiad Nagarpalika, Nadiad. Therefore, the correct birth date of the petitioner is 15.3.1987. Annexed hereto and marked as “Annexure-A” is the copy of Birth Certificate of the petitioner. 2.2 The petitioner studied in Saurabh Vidhyalaya at Vadodara and a School Leaving Certificate was issued in this respect to the petitioner on 23.6.2014 by the Principal of the said school which inadvertently bears the birth date of the petitioner as 5.3.1987 which is not a correct birth date of the petitioner. The petitioner brought to the notice of the principal - the respondent no.3 this fact about his correct date of birth when he applied for a duplicate school leaving certificate as his original school leaving certificate is lost and he is having its photo copy only; in spite of that, the school leaving certificate was issued with incorrect date of birth as 5.3.1987 by the respondent no.3. Annexed hereto and marked “Annexure-B” is the copy of the said school leaving certificate of the petitioner. 2.3 The petitioner states and submits that the guardians/parents of the petitioner and/or the school authority, at relevant point of time, might have inadvertently stated the date of birth of the petitioner as 5.3.1987 in place of the correct date of birth as 15.3.1987 and therefore the school register might have reflected that incorrect date of birth. The petitioner made several efforts at his level to get corrected his date of birth as per his birth certificate but all his such efforts failed and hence his expired & existing passport bears the incorrect date of birth as 5.3.1987 as per his school leaving certificate at Annex.B in place of his correct date of birth as 15.3.1987 as per his birth certificate at Annex.A. Therefore, the petitioner having no any other alternative and efficacious remedy for his such grievance approached this Hon'ble Court with folded hands to interfere in this matter for the issuance of the order and/or direction to the respondent no.1 to 3 in this matter to correct his date of birth as per his birth certificate in his school leaving certificate so that the respondent no.4 can also be requested/ directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in his existing passport. The petitioner was at U.K. for further studies as per student visa; during that time his old passport get expired and therefore his existing passport was issued from Birmigham, U.K. and is valid up to 8.10.2022. Annexed hereto and marked as “Annexure-C” is the copy of the existing passport and as “Annexure-D” is the copy of the expired passport of the petitioner.” 2.4 The petitioner further states and submits that he solemnized his marriage with one Zaveri Neelofar Mohammed Ashraf holding passport of U.S.A. on 16.2.2.14 at Bharuch which was registered on 1st March, 2014 before the Registrar of Marriage, Bharuch and a Certificate of Registration of Marriage has been issued by the said authority in this respect. Annexed hereto and marked as “Annexure-E” is the copy of the Certificate of Registration of his marriage and as “Annexure-F” is the copy of the passport of his wife. 2.5 The petitioner further respectfully states and submits that now he wants to apply for the visa of USA to settle with his wife there and for that his existing passport at Annex.C is required to bear his correct date of birth as 15.3.1987 as per his Birth Certificate at Annex. A and not an incorrect date of birth as 5.3.1987 as per his school leaving certificate at Annex.B. The petitioner humbly states and submits that his existing passport at Annex.C is required to bear his correct date of birth as per his birth certificate and therefore he approached the respondent no.3 for correction of his incorrect birth date shown in his school leaving certificate but he was sent back with empty hands by saying that nothing can be done here in this respect. The petitioner also tried to inquire from the respondent no.4 but his such attempts in this respect are also failed and hence he became remediless and constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court for appropriate relief/s in this respect by way of this petition with folded hands praying for indulgence of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. In background of the above-quoted facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.3 and 4 are not right and justified in not considering and granting the request of the petitioner. In background of the above-quoted facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.3 and 4 are not right and justified in not considering and granting the request of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.3 should have taken appropriate action so as to correct the entry related to petitioner’s date of birth recorded in his school leaving certificate and the said in-action/refusal is unjust and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner made similar submissions and allegations against the respondent No. 4 i.e. the Regional Passport Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 4 should have made appropriate correction in the petitioner’s passport and thereby should have corrected the entry related to petitioner’s date of birth recorded in the passport. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner, for the aforesaid purpose relied on the birth certificate, the respondent No. 3 and 4, should have made appropriate changes and corrections in the respective documents i.e. school leaving certificate and the passport. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition may be allowed and necessary and appropriate directions to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 may be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petition may be entertained and appropriate directions may be issued without requiring the petitioner to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate or Civil Court. So as to support such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in case of Arpanaben K. Shah v. Regional Passport Office [ 2008 (3) GLH 214 ]. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the material on record and the submissions by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. For examining the petitioner's grievance and respondents' actions, it is necessary to take into account relevant provisions namely, provisions under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 [hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1972”] and the regulations viz. Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as “Regulations of 1974”] framed in exercise of power under Section 54 of the said Act of 1972 which prescribe the procedure with regard to change in the entry related to Place and/or Date of Birth, name, etc. Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as “Regulations of 1974”] framed in exercise of power under Section 54 of the said Act of 1972 which prescribe the procedure with regard to change in the entry related to Place and/or Date of Birth, name, etc. in the record of the school and the provision under Section 15 of the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969 [“Act of 1969” for short] as well as Rule - 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rule, 2004 [“said Rules of 2004” for sake of convenience] as well as the provisions under the Passport Act, 1967 and the Regulations framed thereunder. 5.1. So far as the provision under Act of 1969 are concerned, the provision viz. Section 15 of Act of 1969 read thus:- “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 alternation of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.” "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 made 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 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." (emphasis supplied) 5.2. The Regulation No.12A of Regulations of 1974 reads thus:- “12-A. Changes in birth-date, name etc. in school registers (1) No entries shall be changed in the school register without the officer' school prior permission in writing. (2) No application for any change in the school register shall be accepted except that on behalf of a student actually attending the school. (3) An application for any change in the entry in the school register shall be made only by the parents or guardian of the school. (2) No application for any change in the school register shall be accepted except that on behalf of a student actually attending the school. (3) An application for any change in the entry in the school register shall be made only by the parents or guardian of the school. At the time of receipt of the application the Head of the school should certify that he has verified the signature, and the parents or the guardian of the student has signed the application before him. Change in Date of Birth: (4) In an application for change in the birth-date it should clearly be stated as how the error had occurred and the following documentary evidence to substantiate the proposed change should be produced:- (A) Certified extract copied from the Birth register.(1) (B) Certified copy of vaccination certificate.(2) (C) In case of Christian, certified copy of Baptism certificate.(3) (D) An affidavit made by the parent or guardian before a stipendiary magistrate.(4) (E) Any other documentary evidence. Horoscope should not be relied upon much, however, it may be produced as a substantial evidence. No change shall be made in the date of birth unless the documentary evidences produced clearly establish the identification of the child and the parent, and the error genuine and beyond doubt. The sanctioning authority should keep the record of the reasons for sanctioning the change in writing. So far as the secondary school students whose parents because of specified reasons could not produce the extract copied from Birth Register, or vaccination certificate are concerned, permission to make a change in the birth-date records in the School Register may be granted on production of a certificate obtained from the First Class Magistrate by the parents. Change in Name:- (5.1) For making a change in the name, an application along with the following documentary evidence should be presented and no change in the name shall be allowed unless the evidence so presented is carefully examined. (A) In the case of adoption, original adoption deed or a certificate from the magistrate showing the name so changed after adoption. (B) In case of marriage, a declaration made by the parents or guardian attested by the witnesses and the girl herself. (C) In all other cases, an affidavit made by the parents or guardian before the magistrate. (A) In the case of adoption, original adoption deed or a certificate from the magistrate showing the name so changed after adoption. (B) In case of marriage, a declaration made by the parents or guardian attested by the witnesses and the girl herself. (C) In all other cases, an affidavit made by the parents or guardian before the magistrate. (D) In case of a student who has passed public examination, the change allowed in the name is to be conveyed as an instruction for getting it published in the Gujarat Government gazette. (However, a change having been effected on account of marriage need not require to be published in the gazette). (5.2) change in surname. (1) (5.3) change in father's name (2) (5.4) change in Birth-place (3) (5.5) change in religion and caste (4) Permission for changes in (2) to (5) mentioned above shall be granted on the basis of necessary documents such as certificate from SWO, Mamlatdar, Affidavit before the Magistrate on a proof of having published in the Govt. Gazette. (6) In the case of a student leaving the school forever, no change in the entries of the school register shall be made thereafter. Of course, ultimately the only way is to present the required proof in support of true birth-date to the satisfaction of any first class Magistrate, and to obtain from him a certificate, which for all purposes, is accepted as admissible proof of true birth-date. (7) An affidavit shall be made before the officer or person who is empowered by law to make an attestation therefore. Note : (1) Honorary Presidency Magistrate or Justice of Peace or Honorary Magistrate shall not administer nor attest an affidavit, only a stipendiary Magistrate shall be empowered to do so. (1) Under Article 4 of the schedule I of Indian Stamp Act, stamp duty is leviable on the affidavit. (2) Donations not be accepted for admission of students.” (emphasis supplied) Under the Passport Act, 1967, Section 5 and Rule 5 provide that:- “5. (1) Under Article 4 of the schedule I of Indian Stamp Act, stamp duty is leviable on the affidavit. (2) Donations not be accepted for admission of students.” (emphasis supplied) Under the Passport Act, 1967, Section 5 and Rule 5 provide that:- “5. Applications for passports, travel documents, etc., and orders thereon 1(1) An application for the issue of a passport under this Act for visiting such foreign country or countries (not being a named foreign country) as may be specified in the application may be made to the passport authority and shall be accompanied by Such fee as may be prescribed to meet the expenses incurred on special security paper, printing, lamination and other connected miscellaneous services in issuing passports and other travel documents. Explanation.- In this section, "named foreign country" means such foreign country as the Central Government may, by rules made under this Act, specify in this behalf. (1A) An application for the issue of- (i) a passport under this Act for visiting a named foreign country; or (ii) a travel document under this Act, for visiting such foreign country or countries (including a named foreign country) as may be specified in the application or for an endorsement on the passport or travel document referred to in this section, may be made to the passport authority and shall be accompanied by such fee (if any) not exceeding rupees fifty, as may be prescribed. (1B) Every application under this section shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed.) (2) On receipt of an application 3[under this section], the passport authority, after making such inquiry, if any. (1B) Every application under this section shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed.) (2) On receipt of an application 3[under this section], the passport authority, after making such inquiry, if any. as it may consider necessary, shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, by order in writing,- (a) issue the passport or travel documents with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel document the endorsement, in respect of the foreign country or countries specified in the application; or (b) issue the passport or travel document with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel document the endorsement, in respect of one or more of the foreign countries specified in the application and refuse to make an endorsement in respect of the other country or countries; or (c) refuse to issue the passport or travel document or, as the case may be, refuse to make on the passport or travel document any endorsement. (3) Where the passport authority makes an order under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) on the application of any person, it shall record in writing a brief statement of its reasons for making such order and furnish to that person on demand a copy of the same unless in any case the passport authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interests of the general public to furnish such copy. Rule 5 of the Passport Rules, 1980 reads thus:- “5. Form of applications. - (l) An application for issue of a passport or travel document or for the renewal or for any miscellaneous service shall be made in the appropriate form set out therefor in Part I of Sch. III and in accordance with the procedure and instructions set out in such form: Provided that every application for any of the aforesaid purpose shall be made only in the form printed and supplied by- (a) The Central Government; or (b) Any other person whom the Central Government may by notification specify, subject to the condition that such person complies with the conditions specified by that Government in this behalf. Provided further that] in the course of any inquiry under sub-section (2) of section 5, a passport authority may require an applicant to furnish such additional information, documents or certificates, as may be considered necessary by such authority for the proper disposal of the application. (2) The price of the new application forms referred to sub-section (1) shall be specified in column 3 or 4 as the case may be, of Sch. III-A for that particular category: (3) The Passport Authority may authorise any person or authority to collect passport applications on its behalf for issue of a passport or travel document or for the renewal thereof or for any miscellaneous service on payment of a service charge specified by the Central Government under sub-rule (2) of rule 8 in addition to the fee payable under sub-rule (1) of rule 8 and the service charge shall be paid by the applicant to such person or authority.” 6. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate and profitable to take into consideration some decisions wherein above mentioned provisions have been considered. (a) In the decision in case of Mulla Faizal @ Fazilabanu Suleman Ibrahim v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [ 2000 (2) GLR 1553 ], Court observed that:- “8. ... We are surprised to find that the respondent authorities are opposing the petition on an unreasonable ground. The provisions of Section 15 of the Act clearly permit correction of an entry in the Register of births if it is found to be "erroneous in form or substance or has been ... improperly made." 9. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 quoted above allows the concerned authority, i.e. the Registrar, to correct the entry regarding birth in the birth register if the same is erroneous in substance. The person seeking change of entry has to set forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case and support the same by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts. 10. Since the respondent-authorities, who are in charge of maintenance of Register of Births, have been enjoined with a duty to entertain applications for correction of entries in the Register and can for that purpose make necessary enquiries, the learned Single Judge was not right in relegating the appellant to a remedy of civil suit for seeking a declaration regarding his sex. In our considered opinion, the authorities, under the provisions of Section 15 read with Rule 12 of the Rules framed there under, are duty-bound in law to make necessary enquiries and if necessary to obtain medical opinion to grant change of entry in the birth register regarding the sex of the appellant and to issue to him a corrected birth certificate. We find absolutely no legal impediment in the same and the reliance on the letter quoted above is totally misplaced. The said letter does not at all apply to the case like the present one. Here the change in the entries in the Register is sought not on the basis of change of sex, but on the basis that the appellant was born as a natural male although with some deformity in his sexual organ. It would not be proper for the court to relegate the appellant to an onerous remedy of civil suit even if that be held to be available to him.” (emphasis supplied) Thus, as back as in the year 2000, the Court held that the authorities who are in-charge of maintenance of Register of Births are enjoined with a duty to entertain application for correction of entries in the Register. Even at that stage, i.e. before almost 14 years, the Court expressed surprise and anguish against the attitude of the respondent authorities, who not only refused to correct the entry, but also opposed the petition on unreasonable grounds. Unfortunately, even after passage of 14 years, the situation has not changed, despite subsequent decisions. (b) In the decision in case of Registrar, Birth & Death Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Vimal M. Patel Advocate Letters Patent Appeal No. 231/2001 Dated 30.3.2001, the Court has observed and held that:- “4.1 It will be seen from the above provision that the Registrar is empowered to correct the entries or cancel them by suitable entry in the margin without any alteration of the original entry and he shall sign the original entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation. Such correction can be made when the Registrar is satisfied 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. Such correction can be made when the Registrar is satisfied 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. Such power has to be exercised subject to the rules that may be made by the State Government with respect to conditions on which and the circumstances in which the entries may be corrected or cancelled. The expression 'erroneous in form or substance' is an expression of wide amplitude. It cannot be confined only to simple typing errors or clerical mistakes. It is the duty of every Registrar to keep in the prescribed form, a Register of Births and Deaths for the registration area or any part thereof in relation to which he exercises jurisdiction. As regards births, Section 8 of the said Act provides that it shall be the duty of the persons mentioned in Classes (a) to (e) to give or cause to give the information to the Registrar of the particulars required to be entered in the forms prescribed by the State Government, under Section 16(1) for register of births. The provisions of the said Act are aimed at ensuring sanctity of the births and deaths registers. It is the duty of the Registrar to see that the births and deaths registers are correctly maintained. An error may creep in an entry either at its inception or at a later point of time the entry may become erroneous. It can be that the entry when it is read would be erroneous in form or substance. When the Registrar is satisfied that the entries at any given point of time, when read, would be erroneous in form or substance, he can effect a correction. He is not to obliterate the original entry, but is required, with a view to ensure that the entry whenever referred is not erroneous in form or substance, to make a suitable entry in the margin without any alteration in the original entry showing the correction that according to him would prevent any error being reflected in form or substance of the entry as it stood. Since, the powers of the Registrar are wide enough to ensure that the entry made in the Register does not mislead or give an incorrect impression, it is his duty to ensure that suitable correction is made in the entry to ensure the authenticity of the Register by reflecting the correct state of affairs in the marginal entry that he is required to make. No direction can be issued by any authority to take away the powers of the Registrar of making correction in entries which are erroneous in form or substance in the Register. The Registrar, therefore, was not justified in referring to some guidelines and reading them so as to curtail his own powers under Section 15 of the Act. No guidelines can be issued against the statutory provisions empowering the Registrar to make corrections except by way of rules made by the Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled as provided in Section 15 itself. In our opinion, therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the impugned order and directing the appellant Registrar to entertain the application of the respondent and effect necessary correction in the register in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. The appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed.” (emphasis supplied) (c) In the decision in case of Dr. Sukumar Mehta v. District Registrar, Births & Deaths [ 1993 (1) GLR 93 ], the Court observed that:- “3. On Rule Nisi being issued by this Court, Mr. D.K. Trivedi, learned G.P. has appeared on behalf of respondents. In his submission, under the provisions of Registration of Births & Deaths Act, 1969, there is no power in the Registrar to correct the entry already made in the Register of Births. In this connection, Mr. Trivedi has invited the attention of this Court to various provisions of the Act, and more particularly, Sees 14 & 15 of the said Act. Section 14 of the said Act deals with registration, of name of a child. In this connection, Mr. Trivedi has invited the attention of this Court to various provisions of the Act, and more particularly, Sees 14 & 15 of the said Act. Section 14 of the said Act deals with registration, of name of a child. When the birth of any child is registered Without any name, parent or guardian of said child shall within the prescribed period give information regarding the name of the child to the Registrar either orally or in writing and thereupon the Registrar shall enter such ram:: in the Register and initial and date the entry. By this provision impliedly the Registrar is authorised to correct the entry already made in the Register by placing name of the child on an application being made by the parent or guardian of said child. This power is, undoubtedly a limited power inasmuch as the first part of Section refers to the contingency when the birth of any child has been registered without name. In such a contingency there is, no doubt, power in the Registrar to enter the name of the child on application being made by the parent or guardian of the child and to accordingly correct the entry in the Birth Register. Section 15 of the said Act deals with correction or cancellation of entry in the Birth Register. However, power given under Section 15 is, once again, limited power. When an entry in a Birth Register is found to be erroneous in form or in substance or has been factually or improperly made, he has been empowered to correct or cancel such an entry. In view of the specification of circumstances where an entry already made can be corrected under Section 15 it cannot be said that the present case would be governed by Section 15. In case where the birth of child has been registered without the name, then name can be inserted in the register on the application of the parent or guardian of the child. The said power can be legitimately extended to the power to correct the name of the child on the application of parent or guardian of the child. If there is power in tile Registrar to enter the name of child subsequently on the request of parent or guardian there is power also in the Registrar to change the name of child at the request of parent or guardian. If there is power in tile Registrar to enter the name of child subsequently on the request of parent or guardian there is power also in the Registrar to change the name of child at the request of parent or guardian. In my opinion, it is not the case of total absence of power in Registrar and application of the petitioner could have been entertained by the Registrar for change of name of child from "SUCHI" to "Prachi". It is further required to be noted that the application is given by the parent of the child and the same duly affirmed. There is no other person but to have their own choice and there does not appear to be any earthly reason to object to such application. I, therefore, think that this is a fit case where power ought to have been exercised by the Registrar under See. 14 read with Section 15 by entertaining the application of the petitioner and by correcting the name of the minor female child of the petitioner from that "Suchi" to "Prachi". 4. .....In this case" the caption of Section 15 gives general indication to give power to correct the entry in the Birth Register. However, specific case of correction of name of the child already entered is omitted to be provided for. When the entry is erroneous, there is power to correct. When it is factually improperly made, there is power of correction. Question is when entry is rightfully made can it be corrected by resort to this power ? In my opinion, once power to correct an entry already made in the Birth Register is conceded, it should legitimately take within its sweep the correction of entries rightfully made. It is the correction of the name of the child at the instance of the parents or wards. What possible objections can there be in reading such power in the authority if power to correct erroneous entry is conceded ? The omission in the present case appears to be non-deliberate. In my opinion, omission being not deliberate and not supported by cogent reasons it would not be hazardous to read "implied will of the Legislators" in this provision so as to authorise the Registrar to correct the name of the child at the instance of the parents. The omission in the present case appears to be non-deliberate. In my opinion, omission being not deliberate and not supported by cogent reasons it would not be hazardous to read "implied will of the Legislators" in this provision so as to authorise the Registrar to correct the name of the child at the instance of the parents. I, therefore, hold that there is power in the Registrar to correct the entry already made by entertaining the application of the parents. .....” In the said decision, the Court observed that though power under section 15 can be said to be limited to correcting or cancelling entry which is erroneous in form or in substance or which has been made improperly, the said power can be legitimately extended to the power to correct the name of the child on the application of parent or guardian and that if there is power to enter the name of a child subsequently at the request of parent or guardian, then, there is power also to change the name of the child in the register at the request of parent or guardian and that there is no earthly reason to object to such application. By the said decision, the Court clarified the extent and depth of the power of the statutory authority under the said Act. Despite this, even now, the authority continues to refuse to entertain application seeking change /correction in the entries. Such refusal amounts to not acting in consonance with the decision of the Court. (d) In the decision in case of Minor Jagdhishbhai Prabhatbhai Gohil v. State of Gujarat and Ors. Letters Patent Appeal No. 699/2003 in Special Civil Application No. 8122/2003, the Court has observed that:- “4. We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and the documents forming part of the petition. We have also heard Mr. M.R. Mengde, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. From the record of the case, it is evident that the son of appellant has left Secondary School after passing examination of Standard 10. Therefore, in view of Regulation 12-A Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974, school record could not have been corrected after the son of appellant had left the school. The only remedy of the appellant was to approach learned Magistrate, First Class, having jurisdiction in the matter for redressal of his grievance as provided under Section 13(3) of the Act. Therefore, in view of Regulation 12-A Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974, school record could not have been corrected after the son of appellant had left the school. The only remedy of the appellant was to approach learned Magistrate, First Class, having jurisdiction in the matter for redressal of his grievance as provided under Section 13(3) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in concluding that the appellant has alternative remedy and that it was not necessary to entertain the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our view, the learned counsel of the appellant has failed to point out any error in the orders which are impugned in the appeal and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.” (emphasis supplied) (e) In the decision in case of Soorat Jessomal Khanchandani v. Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board & 3 Special Civil Application No. 25312/2006, Court observed that:- “5 On behalf of the respondent No. 2 Affidavit-in-Reply has been filed and it is stated in paragraph No. 5 that the Board has not committed any error in mentioning the name of the petitioner either in the mark-sheet or in the Examination Certificate issued to the daughter of the petitioner because the said documents have been issued on the basis of general register which is maintained as per instructions which are filled up by the concerned school and the student. It is further stated that even the School Leaving Certificate issued by respondent No. 3 - School bears the name of the petitioner as Suratmal. The respondent Board has also placed reliance on the Regulations, more particularly Regulation No. 12-A(6), to submit that no change is possible in the record of the school once the student has left the school. Admittedly the daughter of the petitioner had left the Secondary School, as respondent No. 3 - School has already issued School Leaving Certificate. That the regulation in question has been framed with a view to ensure that illegalities and malpractices are curbed and unscrupulous persons do not take undue advantage by getting entries corrected in the school record subsequently. One more ground is to the effect that prior to appearing at the S.S.C. Examination the students are provided opportunity to correct their names, date of birth and other particulars at the time of pre-list and at the time of issuance of fee receipt/hall tickets. One more ground is to the effect that prior to appearing at the S.S.C. Examination the students are provided opportunity to correct their names, date of birth and other particulars at the time of pre-list and at the time of issuance of fee receipt/hall tickets. That the petitioner having failed to carry out such a correction at an appropriate time cannot claim any relief at this stage. That in the circumstances, the petition requires to be rejected. 6 In principle the stand of the respondent Board appears to be correct.....” 7. In the said decision, after having accepted respondent Board's submission, the Court reached to the conclusion that once the pupil has left the school, any change in the school record is not possible. 7.1. Thereafter, the Court considered the above referred provisions in the decision in case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [ 2008 (1) GLH 556 ]. In the said decision the Court also relied on the decision in case of Thakore Nilesh Shishirbhai v. Gujarat Secondary Education Board (Special Civil Application No. 21036/2006). 7.2. After considering and while relying on various decisions, the Court called out the legal position which emerge in view of the provisions under the Act of 1972 and the Act of 1969 and observed, inter alia, that:- “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. (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. 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. 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). (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.” 8. According to the said decision in case of Nitaben N. Patel, the decision in case of L.P.A.No.699 of 2003 and the decision in case of Thakore Nilesh Shishirbhai govern the field for correction of death and birth and name in the school record including school leaving certificate. 8.1. However, the above mentioned position again came up for consideration before the Division Bench in L.P.A.No. 239 of 2011 wherein the Division Bench observed, with reference to the decision in above-mentioned L.P.A.No.699 of 2003 that:- “9. The decision in Letters Patent Appeal No.699 of 2003 was rendered on the basis of the provision contained in Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which reads as under:- “13. Delayed registration of births and deaths.- (1) Any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified therefor, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. (2) Any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. (3) 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 verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. (4) The provision of this section shall be without prejudice to any action that may be taken against a person for failure on his part to register any birth or death within the time specified therefor and any such birth or death may be registered during the pendency of any such action.” In view of the above, it appears that the said provision does not deal with the question of making correction in the school leaving certificate or the other school records. 10. The petitioner-appellant, therefore, was right when he approached the Civil Court for necessary declaration and the Civil Court erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction. 10. The petitioner-appellant, therefore, was right when he approached the Civil Court for necessary declaration and the Civil Court erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction. However, the appellant accepting the said verdict approached this Court with the petition, where also, he has failed. Unfortunately, the petitioner appellant has not challenged the said order of the Civil Court by way of an appeal.” 8.2. In the said decision in LPA No. 239/2011 the Division Bench emphasized the restriction on the power of learned Magistrate and the restricted scope of the Regulation 12A. 9. At this stage, it is relevant to recall that, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in case of Arpanaben K. Shah (supra). 9.1. So far as the case on hand is concerned, in view of the facts of present case and in view of the relief which are prayed for by the petitioner in present petition (i.e. against school authorities as well as against the passport authority) the decision relied on by the petitioner does not assist his case since the set of facts in the cited decision are materially different from the facts of present case. Besides this, in view of subsequent two decisions by Division Bench, the petitioner's grievance is required to be considered in light of subsequent decisions. 9.2. Therefore, it would be relevant and necessary to consider the said subsequent decisions by Hon'ble Division Bench. 9.3. In this context, it is relevant to mention that after the decision in case of Nitaben N. Patel (supra), certain issues, which arose in light of the provisions under the Passport Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, 1980, came up for consideration before Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Regional Passport Officer v. Kokilaben, w/o Jaswantlal Panchal and Ors. [ 2009 (2) GLR 1246 ] wherein the subject matter was related to correction of birth date recorded in the passport. In the said decision, the Division Bench considered various decisions including the decision in above referred case of Nitaben N. Patel (supra) as well as the Notification issued by the Ministry which prescribes details (the relevant details from the said Notification is recorded in paragraphs number 13(A) to 13(e) of the decision in case of Regional Passport Officer) of the procedural aspects related to correction in the passport. 10. 10. On the other hand, a dispute arising from the request, and refusal, for correction of entry recording the date of birth of the petitioner in school record came-up for consideration before Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision in L.P.A.No. 239 of 2011, wherein, the Division Bench observed, inter alia, that:- “7. Having regard to the legal situation, stated above, it is clear that Judicial Magistrate First Class is not invested with power to make changes in the date of birth or names, as recorded in the school records or the school leaving certificate. The powers which are invested are in respect of making necessary correction in register of birth and death. 8. At this stage, it would also be appropriate to refer to the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974, particularly, Regulation No. 12(A)6, which reads as under:- “In case of a student leaving the school forever, no changes in the entries of the school register shall be made thereafter. Of-course, ultimately, only way is to present the required proof in support of the true birth date to the satisfaction of any First Class Magistrate and to obtain from him a certificate, which for all purposes, is accepted as admissible proof of true birth date.” The above-referred Regulation, therefore, also does not invest the Magistrate with authority to direct making of correction in the records of the school, but it only prescribes a methodology whereby correction can be effected, viz. that if a student, who has left the school forever, wants some correction to be made in the records of school in respect of date of birth or name, he may approach the Magistrate with requisite proof of his true birth date and if the same is found to be satisfactory by the Magistrate, the Magistrate may issue a certificate to him indicating his true birth date and such certificate is held to be sufficient to enable the school authorities to make necessary changes in its records. 10. The petitioner-appellant, therefore, was right when he approached the Civil Court for necessary declaration and the Civil Court erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction. However, the appellant accepting the said verdict approached this Court with the petition, where also, he has failed. Unfortunately, the petitioner-appellant has not challenged the said order of the Civil Court by way of an appeal.” 11. However, the appellant accepting the said verdict approached this Court with the petition, where also, he has failed. Unfortunately, the petitioner-appellant has not challenged the said order of the Civil Court by way of an appeal.” 11. From the foregoing discussion and from the above quoted observations and from the relief prayed for by the petitioner in present petition, it emerges that present case can be examined under three heads viz. (a) correction in the passport by the passport authority; and (b) correction in the school leaving certificate and school records by the school authority; and (c) since with a view to asserting his claim and demand and to assail the decision and action of the authorities the petitioner has relied on copy of birth certificate, it would be relevant and appropriate to consider legal position as regards authority's power to decide the request for correction in the record of birth and death by the Registrar. 12. In various cases it has come to the Notice of the Court that the concerned authorities mechanically reject the request on the ground that he does not have any power to make the correction requested for by the applicant and the applicants are made to rush to the Court without having regard to the judgments of the Court or relevant provisions. 13. In all such cases, the question which is often raised, on account of mechanical refusal and rejection of applications even after the above mentioned decisions and despite above quoted observations, is about the power of the authority appointed under the relevant Act. 14. Re:- Correction - change in respect of the entries in passport. On this aspect is relevant to mention that Section 5 of the Act of 1967 read with Rule 5 of Rules of 1980 empower the authority to call for such documents as may be necessary to process the application and make order as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of said Act of 1967. However, the said provisions do not confer any power on the authority to conduct any independent inquiry for ascertaining/verifying factual aspects. On this count the Division Bench has observed in the decision in case of Regional Passport Officer (2009 [2] GLR 1246) that:- “12. However, the said provisions do not confer any power on the authority to conduct any independent inquiry for ascertaining/verifying factual aspects. On this count the Division Bench has observed in the decision in case of Regional Passport Officer (2009 [2] GLR 1246) that:- “12. We are therefore, clearly of the view that Passport Authorities are not expected to make their own independent enquiry when there is a dispute or difference with regard to the date of birth, place of birth or name entered in the Passport, especially when entries were once made on the basis of records produced by the Passport holder.....” 14.1. So far as any change in the details recorded in the passport is concerned, the passport authority is not expected to conduct independent inquiry when there is dispute or difference with regard to the date of birth or place of birth or name entered in the passport especially when the passport authority made the entry in the passport on the basis of the documents initially submitted by the passport holder. 14.2. When the entries are made in the passport on the basis of the material/document supplied by the passport holder, then, the passport holder cannot claim that any error is committed by the authority. On the other hand, if there is any error in the document submitted by the passport holder, (on which the authority relied for entering the details in the passport) then, it is for the passport holder to get appropriate correction (after following the procedure prescribed for such purpose) in the relevant document and then on that basis seek correction in the passport. Similarly, if there is any discrepancy between the details recorded in the different documents viz. birth certificate and school leaving certificate and the entry in the passport is made on the basis of one of the documents submitted by the applicant/passport holder along with the application, then also, subsequently it cannot be claimed by the passport holder that error has crept-in while entering the details in the passport and he can also not claim and insist that the passport authority should accept the entry made in another document and on that basis change should be carried out in the passport. In case where such discrepancy exists, the passport holder has to get appropriate change/correction in the concerned document and/or submit order/direction from the competent court and only thereafter, the passport authority would be obliged to make necessary correction. 14.3. In the said decision in the case of Regional Passport Officer v. Kokilaben, w/o Jaswantlal Panchal and Ors. [ 2009 (2) GLR 1246 ] the Division Bench observed, inter alia, that:- 12. We are therefore, clearly of the view that Passport Authorities are not expected to make their own independent enquiry when there is a dispute or difference with regard to the date of birth, place of birth or name entered in the Passport, especially when entries were once made on the basis of records produced by the Passport holder. If there is any mistake on the records already produced, based on which entries were already made, then it is for the party who seeks correction to produce documents after carrying out necessary correction by the concerned statutory authorities, Judicial Magistrate or the Civil Court, as the case may be. Passport Authorities are always competent to direct the parties to produce relevant documents either from the authorities functioning under the Births and Deaths Register or from the Judicial Magistrate or from the Civil Court, as the case may be. On production of corrected documents, Passport Authorities will immediately carry out necessary correction in the Passport. 14.4. It is further observed in paragraphs No. 14 and 15 of the decision that:- “14. We have already indicated that sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act enables the Passport authority to ask for furnishing such additional information, documents or certificates, as may be considered necessary by such authority for the proper disposal of the application. Therefore, it is always open to the Passport authority to insist that, when application is submitted by any person for correction of date of birth, place of birth or name, to produce relevant certificates issued by the Competent statutory authority, Judicial Magistrate or Civil Court, based on which necessary correction could be made in the Passport already issued. Therefore, it is always open to the Passport authority to insist that, when application is submitted by any person for correction of date of birth, place of birth or name, to produce relevant certificates issued by the Competent statutory authority, Judicial Magistrate or Civil Court, based on which necessary correction could be made in the Passport already issued. Passport Authority is not competent or expected to make a rowing enquiry by its own to decide as to whether date of birth, place of birth or name already entered in the Passport is correct or not, which in our view, is not the function of the Passport Authority functioning under the Passport Act and the Rules and Regulations. We therefore disagree with the reasoning of the ruling rendered by the learned Judge as well as the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. 15. We therefore, allow all these appeals and set aside the directions given by the learned Single Judges to the Passport Authorities to conduct its own independent enquiry to decide as to whether the correction sought for was justified or not by recording reasons, which in our view are exclusively the functions to be discharged by the statutory authorities like Registrar of Births and Deaths, Judicial Magistrate or the Civil Court, as the case may be, depending upon the facts of each case.” (emphasis supplied) 14.5. As observed by Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision in case of Regional Passport Officer (supra), the concerned applicant and the passport authorities are obliged to take necessary steps and actions as prescribed by the circular dated 29.10.2007 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs (or such modification which may be introduced thereafter). The relevant details of the Notification are mentioned in paragraph Nos. 13(A) to (E) of the said decision in case of Regional Passport Officer (supra), which read thus:- “13(a) Where an applicant claims clerical/technical mistake in the entry relating to birth/place of birth in the passport and asks for rectification/correction, in all such cases the documents produced earlier as proof of date of birth/place of birth at the time of issue of passport may be perused (if not already destroyed) by PIA. In case, it is a clerical mistake either by the applicant or the PIA, date/place of birth correction may be allowed by issue of fresh passport booklet; in the former case, by charging fee for fresh passport and in that latter, 'gratis'. There is no need for declaratory court order in such cases. (b) Where a competent authority which issued a birth certificate or an educational certificate issues any correction or amendment in date/place of birth, PIA may effect the necessary amendment in the passport without insisting on a Court order provided the same document was produced earlier with the passport application. Fresh fees will be charged. (c) Where files have already been destroyed, PIAs could use their discretion in correction of date of birth without a Court order, where such correction is only in months (not more than two years) and applicants provide satisfactory explanation that the same document(s) was provided at the time of initial passport application. Fresh fees will be charged. (d) Where the initial entry has been made on the basis of a supportive document issued by one competent authority i.e. School/educational authority and the applicant subsequently requests for a change on the basis of a certificate issued by another competent authority i.e. Municipal authorities etc., resulting in conflicting documents for valid proof, the PIA should direct the applicant to procure an order from a First Class Judicial Magistrate, to effect the change as per Passport Manual 2001 (In some States, this function is discharged by Civil Magistrates). (e) For those born on or after 26.1.1989, birth certificate is the only approved document, as already prescribed.” 14.6. Thus, according to the relevant provisions and the above mentioned decision by the Division Bench it is always open to the Passport authority to ask, when application is submitted by any person for correction of date of birth, place of birth or name and when there are discrepancies in the documents and/or when some inquiry is found necessary, the applicant to produce relevant certificates issued by the Competent statutory authority, Judicial Magistrate or Civil Court, based on which necessary correction could be made in the Passport. The passport authority will then make necessary change in light of the certificate - order by statutory authority or the Magistrate or the Court as the case may be and will also keep in focus the relevant Notification. The passport authority will then make necessary change in light of the certificate - order by statutory authority or the Magistrate or the Court as the case may be and will also keep in focus the relevant Notification. However, the authority is not, and therefore, cannot be asked, as held by Division Bench, to conduct an inquiry to ascertain the details or the correctness thereof, in face of the discrepancies. 15. Re:- Correction/change in respect of the entries in School record and School Leaving Certificate. So far as the issue about correction in record/register of the school including the school leaving certificate is concerned, it emerges that relevant provision is made by virtue of Regulation 12-A of said Regulations of 1974. The said Regulation 12-A provides inter alia, for change or correction or modification in the records/registers of the school and prescribes, inter alia, that any change or correction or modification in the entries made in the register/record of the school cannot be made without prior permission from the officer. Clause 7 of the regulation 12A of said Regulations 1974 defines the term “officer”, according to which, the District Education Officer appointed as officer of the board by the State Government under Section 21 of the Act. Clause (1) to (5) of said Regulation 12-A prescribe the procedure for change/correction in respect of Date of Birth and also in respect of name of the student. Clause (1) of Regulation prescribe that with prior permission by the officer such correction - change can be made by following the procedure prescribed under said Regulation 12-A of the Regulations of 1974. Clause (4) of said Regulations of 1974 prescribe the procedure for change in Date of Birth of the student. Clause (5) of Regulation 1974 prescribe the procedure for change in name. Thus, it emerges that the authority is vested with the power to make change - correction with regard to name or date of birth. The concerned authority can exercise the power and make appropriate change or correction in the register in accordance with the prescribed procedure. What is pertinent is the fact that Clause 6 of said Regulation 12-A put restriction on the power of the school authorities and/or the authorities of the board. As such, the said Regulations 12-A contemplate two situations viz. The concerned authority can exercise the power and make appropriate change or correction in the register in accordance with the prescribed procedure. What is pertinent is the fact that Clause 6 of said Regulation 12-A put restriction on the power of the school authorities and/or the authorities of the board. As such, the said Regulations 12-A contemplate two situations viz. (i) when the request is made while the student is studying in the school and (ii) when the request is made after having left the school. If the student, who is prosecuting studies with the school, approaches the authority with request to make change or correction in respect of name or date of birth or change in surname or father's name or birth place or religion and caste (clause 5.1 to 5.5 of Regulation 12A) then, the authority would be obliged to make necessary and appropriate correction in light of relevant document/s, of course, with prior permission of the officer and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Rules and the authority would not be justified in compelling the student (who is still studying in the school) to seek order from the court. 15.1. However, clause 6 of the said regulation 12A restricts the exercise of said power and prohibits any change after the student has left the school. According to clause (6) of above mentioned Regulation 12A, once the student has left the school, then, the school authority or the board authority will be denuded of the power to make corrections/change in the school record. In view of the restriction imposed by virtue of clause (6) of said Regulation 12A no change can be effected by the school authorities in the record of the school after the student leaves the school. 15.2. Of course there is one exception to the said prohibition viz. as regards the birth date. The school authority can, upon submission of a certificate issued by Magistrate of First Class, make correction in respect of birth date in the record of the school. 15.3. The scheme of the said Regulation 12-A, including clause 6, has been examined by the Court in the above referred decision dated 27.4.2007 in Special Civil Application No. 21036 of 2006 and after considering said provision, the Court observed in paragraph Nos. 4, 4.1, 4.2 and 5 of the decision that:- “4. 15.3. The scheme of the said Regulation 12-A, including clause 6, has been examined by the Court in the above referred decision dated 27.4.2007 in Special Civil Application No. 21036 of 2006 and after considering said provision, the Court observed in paragraph Nos. 4, 4.1, 4.2 and 5 of the decision that:- “4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the parties. I have also closely perused the record of the petition and the necessary provisions of the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"] as also the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 [hereinafter referred to as the "Registration Act"]. The Regulations have been framed by respondent no. 1 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 54 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 [the "Act" for short]. They have come into force with effect from 16th March, 1974. The Regulations have been framed for the administration and Governance of secondary schools in the State. Chapter V of the Regulations contains provisions with regard to Admissions, Test, Examinations, Health and Discipline of Students. It includes Regulation 12(A). It pertains to change of the birth date, name, etc., in the school register. Clause 1 of Registration 12(A) states that without obtaining prior permission in writing, no change in relation to the entries made in the school register can be effected. Clause 2 states that except applications pertaining to the student actually attending the school, no application for change in the register shall be accepted. Clause 3 requires the guardian or the parent of the student to sign the application which should be certified as such by the Principal of the school. Clause 4 prescribes that for effecting the change in the birth date, certain documents such as (a)Extract of the birth register; (b) Certificate of the vaccination, (c) Certified copy of the certificate of Baptism, if the student was Christian, (d) Affidavit of the parents or the guardian, sworn before the learned Magistrate or any other authentic document can be accepted as corroborating proof. Clause 5 relates to change in the name. It also relates to the change in the surname, name of the father, and place of birth and lastly religion and caste. Clause 5 relates to change in the name. It also relates to the change in the surname, name of the father, and place of birth and lastly religion and caste. So far as the changes other than the name are concerned, they can be effected upon production of necessary documents such as certificate of the competent officer of Social Welfare, Certificate of Mamlatdar, affidavit sworn before the Magistrate or proof of its publication in the Government Gazette. Clause 6 of Regulation 12(A)is relevant for the purpose of this petition. It states that if the student has actually left the school, no change can be effected in the record of the school. However, if the change is to be made with regard to the birth date, it can only be done by producing before the learned concerned Magistrate, all the necessary evidence, who upon scrutiny of the same can issue certificate with regard to the real birth date and only upon production of such certificate, before the concerned authority, the correct birth date could be mentioned in the school record. 4.1. Thus, these Regulations appear to be dealing with two situations namely, when the student is actually studying in the school and secondly the student has left the school. Sub-section (d) of Clause 5 (1) of Regulation 12 (A) states that in case the student has passed public examination and he is permitted to change the name, he shall have to get it published in the Government Gazette. However, if the change was because of the marriage, it may not be published in the Gazette. The change with regard to religion or caste can be effected by production of the certificates of the authorities stated above. This provisions takes care of the student who are still studying in the school after passing the public examination of Standard X. But once the pupil leaves the school, no change can be made in the record of the school as per Clause 6 of this Regulation. The exception is only with regard to the birth date which can be changed on the basis of the certificate issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class. 4.2. It appears from the aforesaid provisions that the learned Magistrate is empowered to enquire into the details with regard to the birth of the students and ascertain correct birth date and then issue certificate accordingly. 4.2. It appears from the aforesaid provisions that the learned Magistrate is empowered to enquire into the details with regard to the birth of the students and ascertain correct birth date and then issue certificate accordingly. On the basis of the same, the change can be made in the record of the school. It further appears that there is no provision in the Regulation which can enable the pupil who has left the school to get the record changed in respect of any other matter except the birth date. A former student of school will, therefore, find it very difficult to get the correction made in the school leaving certificate and that may cause such student unnecessary harassment. This may create serious impediments for the student in the matters of obtaining job, passport or furnishing true personal information to statutory authorities or to make accurate entries in official documents. The consequence can be serious and may cause deprivation of fundamental right or non-fundamental or ordinary legal right. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can remedy such injustice since power has been conferred upon it not only for enforcement of fundamental right but even for other purpose. “5. It may also be noted here that so far as the Registration of the Birth and Death Act is concerned, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, is empowered to verify the correctness of the date of birth or death, on payment of prescribed fee under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Registration Act. When the pupil is still studying in the school, for correction of the birth date or name, it is sufficient for him to produce the affidavit sworn before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Even Clause 6 of Regulation 12(A) permits correction in school record in respect of birth date even after the pupil had left the school on the basis of certificate issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The certificate can be issued by the Magistrate, only after making due scrutiny of the corroborative evidence and upon being convinced about the correctness of the birth date. Thus, it can be seen that certain powers have been conferred upon Judicial Magistrate, First Class by which he can make detailed scrutiny of the necessary evidence and issue certificate. The certificate can be issued by the Magistrate, only after making due scrutiny of the corroborative evidence and upon being convinced about the correctness of the birth date. Thus, it can be seen that certain powers have been conferred upon Judicial Magistrate, First Class by which he can make detailed scrutiny of the necessary evidence and issue certificate. In the instant case, the petitioner has prayed that his religion is wrongly mentioned in the school leaving certificate and though he is Christian, his caste is shown as Hindu Thakore. The petitioner initially approached the school authorities, but the school authorities failed to effect any change. He has, therefore, approached this Court. The entire issue is based on facts. Whether the petitioner is Christian or Hindu Thakore can be determined or decided or ascertained only upon detailed inquiry being made by some authority on the basis of various documents, and if necessary, even by recording oral statement or the affidavit. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot make such inquiry. As already stated above, there is no provision in the Regulation to effect any change in the school leaving certificate except change relating to the birth date, after the pupil has left the school, but that should not make the genuine person suffer unnecessarily. Considering the provisions referred to above, this Court can always direct the subordinate Court in the State to make necessary inquiry and issue proper certificate in accordance with the findings arrived at after the inquiry. In the background of the provisions stated above, it also appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate of the area can be the proper authority to make such inquiry and issue certificate to the concerned student. The procedure which is being followed for correction of the birth date in the school record after the pupil has left the school can be also be applied or followed in other matters such as change in the name, caste/religion, place of birth etc. 5.1. This Court can certainly exercise its power under writ jurisdiction, and direct the Magistrate to make inquiry, but it is desirable that the Government at its level, can suitably bring amendment to the Regulations and along with the birth date in Clause 6 of Regulation 12(A) include other incidental matters also.“ (emphasis supplied) 15.4. 5.1. This Court can certainly exercise its power under writ jurisdiction, and direct the Magistrate to make inquiry, but it is desirable that the Government at its level, can suitably bring amendment to the Regulations and along with the birth date in Clause 6 of Regulation 12(A) include other incidental matters also.“ (emphasis supplied) 15.4. It also emerges from said Clause 6 of Regulation 12A that in the cases where the request for change - correction is received from a student after he left the school, the school authority can make change - correction (a) only in respect of the date of birth of the applicant student, and (b) certificate issued by a Magistrate of First class about correct birth date shall be considered admissible proof. On this count, it is relevant to mention that in the said decision, the Court also observed that, “.... it further appears that there is no provision in the regulation which can enable the pupil who has left the school to get the record changed in respect of any other matter except the birth date.” After further discussion, the Court observed in the said decision that, “In the background of the provisions stated above, it also appears that the learned Magistrate of the area can be proper authority to make such inquiry and issue certificate to the concerned student.” 15.5. In this context it is relevant to mention that this issue and the relevant aspect came up for consideration - after the decision in LPA No. 699 of 2003 and after the decision dated 27.4.2007 in Special Civil Application No. 21036 of 2007 and the decision in case of Regional Passport Officer (supra) - and the issue has been examined by Division Bench (in light of said previous decisions) in case of Bhupatsinh Dalsukhbhai Pateliya [L.P.A.No. 239 of 2011 decided on 24.11.2011]. In the said decision, Division Bench observed, inter alia, that:- “7. Having regard to the legal situation, stated above, it is clear that Judicial Magistrate First Class is not invested with power to make changes in the date of birth or names, as recorded in the school records or the school leaving certificate. The powers which are invested are in respect of making necessary correction in register of birth and death.” 15.6. The powers which are invested are in respect of making necessary correction in register of birth and death.” 15.6. In the said decision in case of Bhupatsinh Dalsukhbhai Pateliya (supra), the Division Bench also considered clause (6) of Regulation 12-A of Regulations of 1974 and observed, inter alia, that:- “8. .....The above-referred Regulation, therefore, also does not invest the Magistrate with authority to direct making of correction in the records of the school, but it only prescribes a methodology whereby correction can be effected, viz. that if a student, who has left the school forever, wants some correction to be made in the records of school in respect of date of birth or name, he may approach the Magistrate with requisite proof of his true birth date and if the same is found to be satisfactory by the Magistrate, the Magistrate may issue a certificate to him indicating his true birth date and such certificate is held to be sufficient to enable the school authorities to make necessary changes in its records.” 15.7. Thus, while Magistrate may issue certificate, he cannot make any change or correction in the records of the school. The Court, then, observed that:- “10. The petitioner-appellant, therefore, was right when he approached the Civil Court for necessary declaration....” 15.8. The foregoing discussion brings out that so far as the dispute related to or arising from the request for change/correction in the school record, including school leaving certificate by a student who is still prosecuting the studies is concerned, the school authority is obliged to take necessary action in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Regulation 12A of said Regulations of 1974. On the other hand, so far as the request by a student who has left the school is concerned, the Division Bench has observed, “that Judicial Magistrate First Class is not invested with power to make changes in the date of birth or names, as recorded in the school records or the school leaving certificate.” In this context, the Division Bench has also observed “The above-referred Regulation, therefore, also does not invest the Magistrate with authority to direct making of correction in the records of the school,...”. Thus, as clarified by the decision dated 24.11.2011 in L.P.A.No. 239 of 2011 according to which the Magistrate First Class is not clothed with the power to make change or correction in school record including the school leaving certificate but the Magistrate First Class, after considering relevant and satisfactory proof and upon being satisfied, can only issue a certificate about correct birth date. Then, it is for the school authority to take necessary steps in light of such certificate but in accordance with Regulation 12-A. 16. Correction - change in the Register of Births & Deaths and the Certificate issued by the Registrar. On plain reading of the provisions under the Act of 1969 and Rule 11, it emerges that the said provisions conjointly prescribe the procedure for registration of births and deaths and also for effecting any change/correction in the entries recorded in the register prescribed and maintained under the Act of 1969 and/or the certificate issued on the basis of the entry recorded in the register. 16.1. Section 15 of the Act prescribes the procedure for change/correction in the entries already recorded in the register of births and deaths. The provision under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 read with Rule 11 of the Rules of 2004 provides, inter alia, that upon being satisfied that any entry of birth or death is erroneous in form or substance or has been made fraudulently or improperly, the registrar may rectify/change the said entry by making suitable entry. 16.2. Thus, the error in the entry, be it merely in form or substance or if it is found to be fraudulently or improperly made, can be corrected by the registrar by making suitable entry. 16.3. However, the regulation contains one Rider viz. necessary and appropriate change/correction should be made by suitable entry in the margin, but without altering the original entry. 16.4. The expression “clerical or formal error” and the expression “any entry” and the words “erroneous in substance” clarify the wide range of power which is conferred on the authority. 16.5. 16.3. However, the regulation contains one Rider viz. necessary and appropriate change/correction should be made by suitable entry in the margin, but without altering the original entry. 16.4. The expression “clerical or formal error” and the expression “any entry” and the words “erroneous in substance” clarify the wide range of power which is conferred on the authority. 16.5. Moreover, the words “if it is proved” followed by the words “entry in the register has been made “fraudulently or improperly” and the words “correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry...” in said Section 15 and the expression “the registrar shall enquire into the matter” as well as the words “if he is satisfied” and “he shall correct the error”, in the said Rule-11 clarify and it follows as a corollary, that the registrar is vested with the power to conduct appropriate inquiry and he can call for and/or receive such material which is considered relevant for his satisfaction. 16.6. The power to make entry would include the power to rectify errors. Further, when section 15 of the Act confers power of correction of error - in form or of substance and even those entry which are made “fraudulently or improperly” - then it cannot be accepted or assumed that the power to make any correction or change with regard to the entry already recorded is not contemplated and permitted by the Act. 16.7. The foregoing discussion and the earlier referred decisions have brought out that the Act and the Rules confer adequate power and authority to the Registrar to even make necessary inquiry and upon being satisfied, the Registrar would be obliged to make necessary “clerical or substantial” correction/change in the manner prescribed under the Rules. Thus not only the Registrar has requisite power to make necessary change or correction, but it would be his statutory obligation, of course upon being satisfied after proper inquiry, to make appropriate and necessary correction or change in the register and that therefore, the Registrar appointed under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 cannot refuse the request to make appropriate correction/change. 16.8. The expression “in form or substance” are of wide range and that therefore, the said expression should not be confined only to clerical mistake. 16.8. The expression “in form or substance” are of wide range and that therefore, the said expression should not be confined only to clerical mistake. In view of above quoted clauses (1) to (6) of Rule 11 and from the expression such as “the registrar shall inquire....he shall correct......” and the words “......Registrar may correct the entry........” and the words “.....an entry is corrected or cancelled.....” employed in said provision, it becomes clear that when satisfactory material is placed before the authority, then, the authority is, of course upon being satisfied after proper inquiry, statutorily obliged to take appropriate action for change/correction in the entry and it would not be proper and just for the competent authority to compel the applicants to approach the Court and/or to insist in all cases - irrespective of the nature of error, that the correction/change can be made only if order passed by the Court is tendered along with the request. 16.9. There is also no doubt with regard to the power of the competent authority to conduct such inquiry as may be considered appropriate, reasonable and necessary to ascertain the genuineness of the request and to ascertain whether any change/correction as requested for is required to be made and whether the request is justified. 16.10. One common aspect which has emerged from the above mentioned decisions and judgments is that, in given case, this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will issue appropriate writ directing the statutory authorities to take appropriate action or make necessary change/correction, however, ordinarily, in cases where inquiry is necessary and/or where scrutiny or examination of documents become necessary, this Court would rather leave such process of inquiry or scrutiny to the Court of learned magistrate or civil court as the case may be. 17. Now the relevant facts of the case - in view of which the petitioner has made the grievance in present case - may be examined. 17.1. When petitioner's grievance is examined in light of the above quoted observations, it becomes clear that there is no base or justification in the grievance made by the petitioner and the decision of the authorities cannot be faulted. There is no ground or justification to interfere with the impugned decisions and the directions by the respondent authorities. 17.2. 17.1. When petitioner's grievance is examined in light of the above quoted observations, it becomes clear that there is no base or justification in the grievance made by the petitioner and the decision of the authorities cannot be faulted. There is no ground or justification to interfere with the impugned decisions and the directions by the respondent authorities. 17.2. In this context, it is relevant and appropriate to recall the relevant factual aspects which have emerged from the facts stated in the petition and from the submissions by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing, viz. (a) the petitioner’s birth date, which is recorded in the birth certificate, is 15.3.1987, (b) whereas the petitioner’s birth date recorded in the school leaving certificate is 5.3.1987, (c) thus, there is discrepancy in the details recorded in the birth certificate and school leaving certificate, (d) and until now, (i.e. the petitioner filed this petition), the petitioner never bothered to get any correction carried out either in the school leaving certificate or the birth certificate, (e) when the petitioner submitted application for passport, the petitioner chose to rely on the school leaving certificate and preferred to submit the school leaving certificate (along with his application) as proof of correctness of the date of birth, (f) accordingly, the authority prepared the passport on the basis of details supplied by the petitioner and issued the passport in 2002. The said passport reflects 5.3.1987 as petitioner’s birth date and it is recorded by the passport authority on the basis of the document viz. school leaving certificate submitted by the petitioner (along with his application). (g) now, the petitioner wants that the entry related to his birth date recorded in school leaving certificate as well as in his passport may be changed on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his birth certificate. 17.3. In this context, it is also relevant to also take note of certain other relevant factual aspects viz. (g) now, the petitioner wants that the entry related to his birth date recorded in school leaving certificate as well as in his passport may be changed on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his birth certificate. 17.3. In this context, it is also relevant to also take note of certain other relevant factual aspects viz. (a) the petitioner left the school (which has issued the school leaving certificate in question) in May-2006; and (b) now, about eight years after he left the school, the petitioner wants correction in the school leaving certificate, which would also necessitate correction in the school record/register; and (c) along with his application for passport, the petitioner himself had submitted school leaving certificate as relevant document as proof in support of the details filled-up in the application; (d) the authority prepared the passport and entered the details on the basis of documents submitted by the petitioner; (e) while recording the details in the passport on the basis of the document (viz. school leaving certificate) submitted by the petitioner, the authority did not commit any mistake; (f) the passport was initially issued in 2002 and was valid until October-2012; (g) during the said period, the petitioner did not take any action for correction in school leaving certificate and/or in passport; (h) along with his application for passport, the petitioner himself, of his own choice, did not rely on and did not submit the birth certificate and instead submitted school leaving certificate which reflected his birth date as 5.3.1987 and that is what the passport authority recorded while issuing the passport in October-2002; (i) moreover, there is discrepancy in the said documents (viz. birth certificate and school leaving certificate) so far as date of birth is concerned and on one hand the passport authority cannot conduct any inquiry in matter of such discrepancy and on the other hand, the school authority cannot take any action in absence of any certificate/order by the Magistrate First Class and/or by the Court, since the petitioner has come forward with such request almost 8 years after he left the school. (j) it is not the case of the petitioner that the passport authority committed mistake in recording the birth date by recording some other date than the date which was mentioned in the document supplied (i.e. the school leaving certificate) by the petitioner; (k) further - and more pertinent fact is the fact that - the petitioner used the said passport from 2002 till 2012 and in the interregnum never took any steps to get any correction carried out and then without getting appropriate correction carried out in relevant documents, got his passport renewed with very same details and without informing the passport authority about the discrepancy; (l) since there was no instruction that there is any error in the details recorded in the passport and since there was no request/application to correct/change any details recorded in the passport, the concerned/competent authority renewed the petitioner’s passport and issued the renewed passport (which is valid until 8.12.2022) incorporating same details as recorded in the passport which was submitted for renewal, (m) during said entire intervening period, i.e. from 2002 to 2012, the petitioner did not take any action to get appropriate change or correction made in the passport and/or school record; (n) even while submitting application for renewal of passport, the petitioner did not take care to complete the formalities for getting necessary change/ correction made in the school leaving certificate and thereby in the passport, (o) the concerned passport authority renewed and issued the renewed passport on the basis of existing document i.e. passport issued in 2002, (p) Now, about 12 years after the first passport was issued and about 2 years after the renewal of the passport, the petitioner has come forward with present petition and seeks above quoted relief and directions. 18. The above mentioned factual aspects demonstrate that the petitioner's grievance against the decision/order by the respondent authority is unjustified inasmuch as in light of the relevant provision and in light of the above discussed decisions, the school authority does not have power to make any change in school record after the student has left the school, unless the procedure prescribed under Clause (6) of Regulation 12A of 1974 Regulations is followed. As regards the grievance related to passport the petitioner cannot expect that the passport authority should, now, after long lapse of almost 14 years consider different/another document than what was submitted earlier and that too when there is discrepancy in the details recorded in the school leaving certificate and to the birth certificate - and/or to conduct independent inquiry and reach to the conclusion as to which document contains correct entry. In backdrop of such facts, the passport authority in absence of any order by Court or statutory authority cannot be expected, or directed to decide that another document deserves to be preferred and relied on instead of the document which was submitted earlier. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner intends to get any correction in the entries recorded in the passport, then, he shall have to follow the procedure prescribed under Regulation 12A of Regulation of 1974 and/or the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act of 1969, and he should get change /correction in the school record including school leaving certificate and/or the birth certificate and then approach the passport authority with appropriate application, documents and certificate/order by the Court by following the procedure as explained by the above quoted decisions, i.e. in case of Nitaben N. Patel (supra) and in case of Regional Passport Officer (2009/2/GLR/1246) and in the decision dated 24.11.2011 in LPA No. 239 of 2011. 20. For the foregoing reasons, and in view of the aforesaid facts the decision and action/order by the respondent school authorities and/or by the respondent passport authority cannot be faulted. Further, in light of the above mentioned decisions by the Division Bench any direction as prayed for by the petitioner against the respondent school authority and/or passport authority, cannot be issued. Besides this, in view of the facts of the case, it will not be proper or permissible for the Court to issue directions to the passport authority to make such change as asked for by the petitioner since such direction would amount to directing the authority to make change in the details recorded in the said documents without calling for relevant documents/proof and/or without following the procedure. Similarly in view of the facts of the case (viz. Similarly in view of the facts of the case (viz. the petitioner has left the school without getting appropriate change in the record) and in light of the prohibition prescribed by Clause (6) of Regulation 12A, it will not be proper or permissible for this Court to issue any direction to make changes in the school record. Consequently, the grievance made and challenge raised by the petitioner in present petition fails. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with above mentioned clarifications. Petition dismissed.