JUDGMENT : Vipul M Pancholi, J. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent authority be directed to the change the date of birth of the petitioner from "07.09.1991" to "07.07.1991" in the birth certificate issued by the respondent authority in favour of the petitioner. 2. Heard learned advocate, Mrs. Nasrin Shaikh for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Shruti Pathak for the respondent no.2. Though served, no one appears for the respondent no.1. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was born on 07.07.1991 at Hemant Hospital, Kalol and the respondent no.1 authority has issued birth certificate in favour of the petitioner, however in the said birth certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is wrongly recorded as 07.09.1991 instead of 07.07.1991. Learned advocate submits that in all other documents like School Leaving Certificate, Aadhar Card, Election Card, PAN Card etc. the correct date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 07.07.1991. 4. It is further submitted that when the petitioner came to know about such mistake committed by the respondent authority while recording the date of birth of the petitioner in the birth certificate, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent authority for necessary correction, however, the respondent no.1, without making any inquiry as contemplated under Section 15 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder, rejected the request of the petitioner by impugned communication dated 01.01.2019 and while rejecting the request of the petitioner, the respondent no.1 has placed reliance upon the Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar (Birth and Death), State of Gujarat. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid Circular dated 18.02.2016 is considered by this Court in number of cases and recently, this Court has passed an order dated 16.01.2019 in Special Civil Application No.19054/2018, wherein this Court has considered the aforesaid Circular and issued appropriate directions to the concerned authority. 6. Learned AGP is not in a position to dispute the fact that this Court has considered similar issue while deciding Special Civil Application No.19054/2018 by an order dated 16.01.2019. 7. In the facts of the case, as pointed out, the date of birth recorded in all other documents produced by the petitioner on record is "07.07.1991", however in the birth certificate, it is wrongly recorded as "07.09.1991". 7. In the facts of the case, as pointed out, the date of birth recorded in all other documents produced by the petitioner on record is "07.07.1991", however in the birth certificate, it is wrongly recorded as "07.09.1991". As contended by learned advocate for the petitioner, if the impugned communication of the respondent no.1 is seen, it is revealed that the respondent no.1 has without making any inquiry under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and as per the Rule 11 of the Rules of 20004, rejected the request of the petitioner relying upon the Circular dated 18.02.2016. 8. This Court while deciding Special Civil Application No.19054/2018 by an order dated 16.01.2019 has observed in Paragraph Nos.8, 22, 25 and 26 as under, "8. In the aforesaid facts, following issues are required to be decided in the present case: (i) Can Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat, override the statutory provisions? (ii) Can the competent authority appointed under the provisions of the Act of 1969 and Rules framed thereunder, simply rely upon the aforesaid Circular without making any inquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Act of 1969 and Rules framed thereunder? 22. From the aforesaid statutory provisions and the decisions rendered by this Court, following aspects would emerge: (a) The expression "erroneous in form of substance" in Section 15 of the Act of 1969 is an expression of wide amplitude and does not confine to simple typing errors or clerical mistakes and no guidelines or circulars can take away powers of the Registrar of making correction in entries which are erroneous in form or substance in register as envisaged under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and Rule 11(1) to (7) of the State Rules, 2004. (b) The Registrar appointed under the provisions of the Act of 1969 has got powers for correction in relation to the entries and the name also in the Register/ Birth Certificate and such correction or cancellation also comes within the purview of powers under Section 15 of the Act of 1969. (b) The Registrar appointed under the provisions of the Act of 1969 has got powers for correction in relation to the entries and the name also in the Register/ Birth Certificate and such correction or cancellation also comes within the purview of powers under Section 15 of the Act of 1969. (c) The competent authority appointed under the provisions of the Act of 1969 has to consider whether the entry in the Birth Certificate/Register can be corrected or not, after making inquiry and after going through the relevant material, which may be produced by the concerned applicant or which may be called by competent authority for satisfying itself. 25. Thus, answer to issue No. (i) framed as above, is that Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat, cannot override the statutory provisions and answer to Issue No.(ii) is that Competent Authority appointed under the provisions of the Act of 1969 and Rules framed thereunder cannot simply rely upon the circular and reject the request of the concerned applicant, without making necessary inquiry. 26. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, if the facts as discussed hereinabove are examined, it is revealed that respondent No.2 has rejected the request of the petitioner simply relying upon the Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat. It is not in dispute that while rejecting the request of the petitioner, respondent No.2 has not carried out any inquiry nor examined the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. Therefore, the said decision taken by respondent No.2 is required to be set aside." 9. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid order and, hence, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the respondent no.1 authority is required to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the documents produced on record. 10. Therefore, the impugned communication dated 01.01.2019 of the respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.1 for deciding the application of the petitioner afresh for correction in the date of birth of the petitioner in the birth certificate. 10. Therefore, the impugned communication dated 01.01.2019 of the respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.1 for deciding the application of the petitioner afresh for correction in the date of birth of the petitioner in the birth certificate. While deciding the application of the petitioner, the respondent no.1 shall consider the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and shall also take into consideration the provision contained in Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and Rules of 2004 as well as the directions issued by this Court while passing an order dated 16.01.2019 in Special Civil Application No.19054/2018. The respondent no.1 shall decide the application of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.