Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 18 (GUJ)

SEJALBEN MUKUNDBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2019-01-16

VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2019
JUDGMENT Vipul M. Pancholi, J. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent authority be directed to carry out the correction in respect of the name of the petitioner as 'Sejalben' instead of 'Manisha' and also mention the surname of the petitioner as 'Patel' in the Birth Certificate/Register as per the documents annexed with the petition and thereby direction be given to the respondent to issue fresh Birth Certificate containing the correct details. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Harish J. Soni for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Asmita Patel for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mrs. Kalpana K. Raval for respondent No.2. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the correct name of the petitioner is Sejalben. However, through mistake, her name is recorded as 'Manisha' in the Birth Certificate issued by respondent No.2 and the surname of the petitioner i.e. 'Patel' was not mentioned. The petitioner has, therefore, requested respondent No.2 to correct the name of the petitioner and add the surname of the petitioner in the Birth Certificate. However, the request of the petitioner came to be rejected by respondent No.2 by communication/order dated 06.07.2018. Learned advocate referred the said communication/order. It is submitted that respondent No.2, while not entertaining the request of the petitioner, has placed reliance upon the Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Soni has thereafter referred the documentary evidence, namely, School Leaving Certificate, Passport, Election Card, Aadhar Card, PAN Card, APL-1 Card, Certificate of Registration of Marriage and the affidavits of the petitioner and her brother. Relying upon the aforesaid documentary evidence, it is submitted that in all the aforesaid documents, name of the petitioner is correctly recorded as 'Sejalben' and her surname is mentioned as 'Patel' and, therefore, respondent No.2 ought to have considered the said documentary evidence at the time of considering the application submitted by the petitioner. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Soni, thereafter, has placed reliance upon the following decisions and orders passed by this Court. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Soni, thereafter, has placed reliance upon the following decisions and orders passed by this Court. (1) Order dated 10.05.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.497 of 2012 (2) Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in, (2008) 1 GLH 556 (3) Natubhai Dharamdas Patel v. State of Gujarat and others, (2018) AIR Gujarat 92 (4) Order dated 06.06.2017 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.10126 of 2017 (5) Order dated 19.12.2018 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2004 of 2018. 3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Soni has also referred the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1969") and the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2004"). 3.4 Relying upon the aforesaid provisions and the decisions rendered by this Court, it is contended that the respondent authority is empowered to correct the name of the concerned applicant on the basis of the documentary evidence produced before it. However, in the present case, the respondent authority has not considered the request of the petitioner and even not looked into the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and simply, placed reliance upon the Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat. Learned advocate Mr. Soni has, therefore, urged that communication/order dated 06.07.2018 issued by respondent No.2 be set aside and necessary direction be given to respondent No.2 to correct the name of the petitioner and to add surname of the petitioner in the Birth Certificate. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mrs. Kalpana K. Raval appearing for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed this petition. Learned advocate has pointed out the averments made by the petitioner in Paragraph-3.1 of the petition. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mrs. Kalpana K. Raval appearing for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed this petition. Learned advocate has pointed out the averments made by the petitioner in Paragraph-3.1 of the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner herself has admitted that through inadvertence and mistake, name 'Manisha' is given to the respondent authority at the time of registration of date of birth and name and, therefore, when the petitioner is admitting the mistake on the part of her parents and when there was no mistake on the part of respondent No.2 while recording the name of the petitioner in the Birth Certificate, no error is committed by respondent No.2 while not entertaining the request of the petitioner. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has also referred the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and contended that if there is a mistake committed by the respondent authority while recording the name or the birth date in the Birth Certificate/Register, such mistake can be rectified. However, in the present case, when the petitioner has admitted that it was the mistake of the father of the petitioner while giving name to the respondent authority at the time of registration, powers under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 cannot be exercised by respondent No.2 and, therefore, this Court may not entertain this petition. 4.1 Learned advocate Mrs. Raval has thereafter referred the Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat, copy of which is produced at Page-56 of the compilation. After referring the said Circular, it is submitted that as per the Guidelines issued by the concerned authority, name can be changed from 'Sanjaykumar' to 'Sanjaybhai' and 'Ramlal' to 'Rambhai' but not 'Sanjaykumar' to 'Dilipkumar'. In the present case, the petitioner wants that her name is to be changed from 'Manisha' to 'Sejalben' in the Birth Certificate, which is not permissible in view of the Guidelines issued by the concerned authority and, therefore, respondent No.2 has not entertained the request of the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim reliefs, as prayed for, in the petition. Learned advocate Mrs. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim reliefs, as prayed for, in the petition. Learned advocate Mrs. Raval has placed reliance upon following decisions and orders passed by this Court: (1) Order dated 07.09.2018 passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1174 of 2018 (2) Regional Passport Officer v. Kokilaben w/o. Jaswantlal Panchal & Ors. reported in, (2009) 2 GLR 1246 (3) Bhavin Natvarlal Patel v. Regional Passport Officer & Ors. reported in, (1998) 1 GLR 770 4.2 After referring the said decisions, learned advocate has submitted that when respondent No.2 has not committed any error while recording the name of the petitioner in the Birth Certificate/Register, this Court may not entertain this petition. However, she has fairly submitted that so far as the surname of the petitioner is concerned, the same is not registered in the Birth Certificate/ Register and, therefore, in the communication dated 06.07.2018, the petitioner was asked to produce the evidence. As and when the evidence is produced by the petitioner, appropriate decision will be taken. It is, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Asmita Patel has supported the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for respondent No.2. 6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged that it is the case of the petitioner that when her date of birth is registered with respondent No.2, father of the petitioner has, through inadvertence and mistake, given the name of the petitioner as 'Manisha'. It is further revealed that surname 'Patel' is not mentioned in the Birth Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. It is further revealed that in all the other documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, such as, School Leaving Certificate, Passport, Election Card, Aadhar Card, PAN Card, APL-1 Card and Certificate of Registration of Marriage, name of the petitioner is shown as 'Sejalben'. The petitioner and her brother have also filed affidavits, copy of which is produced at Pages-33 to 36 of the compilation. 7. The petitioner and her brother have also filed affidavits, copy of which is produced at Pages-33 to 36 of the compilation. 7. It is further revealed from the record that when the petitioner has submitted an application for correction of her name and to add surname in the Birth Certificate, respondent No.2 has rejected the request of the petitioner relying upon the Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat, by saying that correction in the name is not permissible as per the Guidelines issued in the said Circular. 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? 9. For deciding the aforesaid issues, relevant provisions of the Act of 1969 and Rules of 2004 are required to be referred. 10. Section 15 of the Act of 1969 provides as under: "Section 15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the registrar of births and deaths - If it is proved to the satisfaction of the registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation .... " 11. Rule 11 of the Rules of 2004 provides as under: "Rule 11. " 11. Rule 11 of the Rules of 2004 provides as under: "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 section 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 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. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub rule (1) and sub rule (4), the Registrar shall make report of any correction of the kind referred to therein giving necessary details to the District Registrar of Births and Deaths. (6) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry in the register of births and deaths has been fraudulently or improperly, he shall make a report giving necessary details to the officer authorized by the Chief Registrar by general or special order in this behalf under section 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 section 8 or section 9 of the Act.... " 12. At this stage, this Court would like to refer various decisions rendered by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court on the similar points. 13. In the case of Dilipbhai Jivarajbhai Mendpara Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., this Court passed an order dated 06.06.2017 in Special Civil Application No.10126 of 2017. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the said case. In the said case, a request was made by the concerned petitioner to change the name of his daughter from 'Purvi' to 'Krupa', as the said name was mistakenly entered into the Birth Register at the instance of the petitioner. In the said case also, when the petitioner filed representation, the same was not entertained by relying upon the Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the concerned authority of the State Government. This Court, after considering the decision rendered in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra), quashed and set aside the order passed by the concerned authority and the concerned respondent authority was directed to reconsider the case of the concerned petitioner. 14. In the case of Vipulkumar Ramanlal Patel Through POA Patel Ramanlal Versus State of Gujarat (supra), the Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 10.05.2012 in Letters Patent Appeal No.497 of 2012, copy of which is produced at Page-44 of the compilation. The Division Bench of this Court considered the similar issue and on the basis of the documentary evidence produced by the concerned appellant as well as on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parents of the concerned appellant, direction was given to issue new Birth Certificate showing the correct date of birth. 15. In the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra), this Court held in Paragraph-26 as under: "26. 15. In the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra), this Court held in Paragraph-26 as under: "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. of India and Clause 5.8 of Chapter 5 of guidelines contained in varnacular 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. 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 varnacular 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). (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." 16. XXX XXX XXX 17. In the case of Natubhai Dharamdas Patel v. State of Gujarat and others (supra), this Court has considered the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and Rule 11 of the Rules of 2004 and after considering the decision in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra), this Court issued necessary direction to the respondent authority for reconsideration of the request of the concerned petitioner. 18. In the case of Krunal Prahladbhai Prajapati Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., this Court has passed an order dated 26.02.2016 in Special Civil Application No.11281 of 2016. This Court has, after considering the decision in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra), observed in Paragraphs 6.6 and 6.7 as under: "6.6 In view of above position of law, it cannot be said that when the petitioner has made an application for correction of entry in the date of birth etc. which was recorded at the relevant time, merely because the date of birth sought to be corrected is later in point of time by three months than the originally recorded, the authority cannot exercise powers under Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 11 as above. It has to consider whether the entry in the birth date is correct or can be cancelled and denied after making inquiry and after going through relevant material which may be produced by the petitioner or which the competent authority may call for satisfying itself. It is entirely not germane to say that there was a gap of three months between old birth date and new birth date so as to refuse to exercise power on that count. It is entirely not germane to say that there was a gap of three months between old birth date and new birth date so as to refuse to exercise power on that count. 6.7 In view of above, the competent authority respondent No.2 herein has to exercise his powers so as to consider the merits of the request of the petitioner for correction of date of birth as well as corrections in the name of mother and the name of grandfather. The respondent No.2 has got powers for correction in relation to the entries and the name also and such correction or cancellation also comes within the purview of the powers under Section 15 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, necessary directions are required to be issued to respondent No.2 authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner again by giving due regard to the material which may be produced by the petitioner." 19. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has placed reliance upon the case of Suhani D/o. Bhikhabhai Patel vs. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, wherein this Court passed an order on 07.09.2018 in Special Civil Application No.1174 of 2018. However, the facts of the said case are different. In the said case, the concerned petitioner submitted an application before the Magistrate under Regulation 12(A) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulation, 1974. The application was made for correction of mistake committed by the School Authority while issuing School Leaving Certificate as per the Regulation. For any correction in the School Leaving Certificate, if the student has left the School, the concerned person has to approach before the Magistrate Court and, therefore, this Court was considering the said issue. Hence, the aforesaid decision would not render any assistance to learned advocate for respondent No.2. 20. In the case of Regional Passport Officer v. Kokilaben w/o. Jaswantlal Panchal & Ors. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court was considering the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 read with provisions of the Act of 1969. In the said case, the concerned person wanted correction in the Passport. 20. In the case of Regional Passport Officer v. Kokilaben w/o. Jaswantlal Panchal & Ors. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court was considering the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 read with provisions of the Act of 1969. In the said case, the concerned person wanted correction in the Passport. The Division Bench of this Court, after placing reliance upon the provisions of the Passports Act, observed that it is always open for 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. It was also held that 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. On the contrary, while allowing the appeal, the Division Bench observed that 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, 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. 21. In the case of Bhavin Natvarlal Patel v. Regional Passport Officer & Ors. (supra), proceedings were filed before the concerned Magistrate for change in the date of birth. The concerned Magistrate passed an order in favour of the concerned applicant on the basis of the oral evidence and photostat copy of the School Leaving Certificate only. The said approach of the Magistrate was deprecated and it was found that the concerned petitioner obtained the order from the Magistrate regarding the change in the date of birth by producing forged School Leaving Certificate and, therefore, this Court did not entertain the request. 22. The said approach of the Magistrate was deprecated and it was found that the concerned petitioner obtained the order from the Magistrate regarding the change in the date of birth by producing forged School Leaving Certificate and, therefore, this Court did not entertain the request. 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. (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. 23. It is required to be noted that respondent No.2 has not stated in the impugned order that the father of the petitioner has given name as 'Manisha' while registering her name in the Birth Register and, therefore, respondent No.2 will not entertain the request of the petitioner for correction of the name. It is only the learned advocate who is appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, has raised contention, on the basis of the averments made by the petitioner in the memo of petition, that there was no mistake on the part of respondent No.2 in correcting the name of the petitioner and, therefore, respondent No.2 cannot be directed to correct the name of the petitioner. However, it is required to be noted at this stage that this Court has considered the similar issue in Special Civil Application No.10126 of 2017 and observed in Paragraphs-3 and 4 as under: "3. However, it is required to be noted at this stage that this Court has considered the similar issue in Special Civil Application No.10126 of 2017 and observed in Paragraphs-3 and 4 as under: "3. The petition is filed seeking a direction against the respondent under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Act of 18 of 1969) (for short "the Act") to correct the name of the petitioner's daughter from Purvi to Krupa, as, according to the petitioner, the said name was mistakenly entered into the birth register at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner has made a representation in this regard produced at Annexure "C" which has been decided against the petitioner citing Circular dated 18.2.2016 purportedly prohibiting the respondent from correcting the name of a person in the birth register. On close perusal of the circular it transpires that once upon a time a clarification was made that the change in the name applied for by a person under the Act should not be permitted except where substantially the name remains the same. Such clarification came to be withdrawn subsequently and it appears that because of withdrawal of such clarification the respondent authority finds itself bereft of the power to make correction of the errors even in cases where the name is not sought to be changed, but only correction of name is sought. This, in the opinion of this Court, is a total misreading of the circular. The circular does not preclude correction of errors in the name; it once upon a time prohibited the change of name. This is not a case for change in name but a case where the parents of the baby girl Krupa have filed an affidavit stating that the correct name of their baby girl is Krupa and not Purvi as registered in the birth register. A reference to the decision in Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 1 GLH 556 may be made at this stage where this Court has, after elaborately pointed out the correct legal position inter alia for dealing with applications under Section 15 of the Act. The respondent is thus under an obligation to adhere to the decision in Nitaben (supra) and address the issue again on that basis. 4. In above view of the matter, the petition deserves to succeed. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The respondent is thus under an obligation to adhere to the decision in Nitaben (supra) and address the issue again on that basis. 4. In above view of the matter, the petition deserves to succeed. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.5.2017 is quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted." 24. The aforesaid decision rendered by this Court has attained finality and it is not pointed out that the said decision is reversed by the higher forum. 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. 27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is partly-allowed. Impugned order dated 06.07.2018 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the observations made in the present order and pass appropriate order after making inquiry as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and after considering the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the observations made in the present order and pass appropriate order after making inquiry as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and after considering the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 shall complete the said exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Direct Service is permitted.