Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 558 (GUJ)

Natubhai Dharamdas Patel v. State of Gujarat

2018-02-20

A.J.SHASTRI

body2018
ORDER : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Parikh waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today itself. The present petition is filed by the petitioner by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying to direct the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.05.1954 instead of continuing the wrong date of birth i.e. 10.04.1954 in the birth certificate. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Harish J. Soni appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Krutik Parikh appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Soni has referred to the background of the facts and also the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the Talati-cum-Mantri. He submitted that the impugned order is passed in spite of the order passed earlier by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 523 of 2017. He referred to the impugned order and submitted that the authority below has failed to consider the judgment of the High Court in case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. The State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2008 (1) GLH 556 : AIR 2008 (NOC) 1876 (Guj). Learned advocate Mr. Soni also referred to the provisions of Section 15 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act read with Rule 11(4) and 11(5) of the Gujarat Registration of Birth and Death Rules 2004. 4. Learned AGP Mr. Parikh however resisted and submitted that as stated in the earlier judgment, the judgment may not have any application as there is no inadvertent mistake. Learned AGP Mr. Parikh has also referred to the Circular issued by the Government and submitted that still the petitioner may make the representation in light of the Circular. 5. As could be seen from the background of the facts, earlier, Special Civil Application No. 523 of 2017 was filed and it was directed to be considered. The petitioner has produced the documentary evidence along with the evidence. The documentary evidence in the form of School Leaving Certificate and passport etc. record the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.05.1954 and therefore the prayer made for correction of date of birth as 01.05.1954 instead of 10.04.1954 as recorded in the birth certificate deserve consideration by the authority. 6. The documentary evidence in the form of School Leaving Certificate and passport etc. record the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.05.1954 and therefore the prayer made for correction of date of birth as 01.05.1954 instead of 10.04.1954 as recorded in the birth certificate deserve consideration by the authority. 6. The provisions of Section 15 of Registration of Birth and Death Act provide for such correction. The Judgment of the High Court in case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel, AIR 2008 (NOC) 1876 (Guj) (supra) clearly suggest about such correction could be made if the Registrar is satisfied on the basis of material and document produced on record. Therefore, a close look at the provisions of the Act read with the Rules require to be considered. Rule 11(5) of the Birth and Registration Rules provide: "(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." Similarly, Section 11(4) of the Rules provide; "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 same manner prescribed under Section 15 of the Act upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case." 7. Therefore the provisions of Section 15 of the Act read with the Rules as stated above makes the position clear that it is for the Registrar to reach such satisfaction and make necessary correction on verification of the document produced before him. In other words, it is for the Registrar to arrive at the satisfaction based on the documentary evidence and thereafter he can make the correction. Thus, the Registrar is vested with such powers which he can exercise and therefore there is no lack of jurisdiction or the power. Thus, when the statute cast an obligation upon the Registrar to make such changes depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and in the background of the material and evidence that may be produced, it cannot be said that there is no provision, and the Registrar cannot correct the date of birth once it is recorded in the birth register. In fact the provisions of Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 11(4) and 11(5) of the Rules give power to the Registrar to make such correction or modification after having been satisfied on the basis of the documentary evidence that may be produced before him. In other words this is a power coupled with the obligation that he has to reach such satisfaction on the basis of material that may be produced. Moreover as stated by learned AGP, there is also a Circular issued by the Government. 8. Therefore, the interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is directed to make fresh representation with necessary supporting documents or the petition itself may be treated as a representation which shall be made to the Respondent No. 2 within a period of one week. The Respondent No. 2 shall consider the same within a period of eight weeks as per the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act and the Rules as stated above as well as in light of the decision of this Court in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel, AIR 2008 (NOC) 1876 (Guj) (supra) as well as the decision of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 497 of 2012 dated 10.05.2012, after being satisfied and shall take the decision within a period of four weeks thereafter regarding correction of date of birth. 9. The petition is allowed. The impugned communication at Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside. It is also made clear that the observation that the decision of this High Court would not have any application, cannot be accepted in light of the discussion hereinabove and Respondent No. 2 as stated above is under statutory obligation by the statute to make necessary verification and correct the date of birth if he is satisfied on the basis of the documentary evidence. The present petition stands disposed of to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Direct serviced permitted.