JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no. 1 State and Ms. Nayana Panchal, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case which lies in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 16.01.2017, passed by the Talati-cum-Mantri, Mundrada Gram Panchayat, Taluka and District: Mehsana be quashed and set aside and further prayed to direct the respondent no.2 to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the certificate and register of birth. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was born at Akhaj Village on 28.04.1976. However, the respondent no.2 Talati-cum-Mantri erroneously recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 28.08.1976 instead of 28.04.1976 in the Register of Birth to be maintained under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act-1969 (for short “the Act-1969”). 5. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application dated 17.08.2015 for change of date of birth, however, the respondent no.2 rejected such application. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Special Civil Application No. 18522 of 2015. The co-ordinate bench of this Court (Coram: N. V. Anjaria, J.) vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2016, allowed the said petition by directing the respondent no.2 authority to consider the case of the petitioner as per application dated 17.08.2015 as expeditiously as possible and within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The order dated 28.01.2016 reads thus: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon request and consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the petition could be taken up for final consideration. 1.1 RULE, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jyoti Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1, whereas learned advocate Ms. Nayana V. Panchal waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 who is the competent authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. 2. 1.1 RULE, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jyoti Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1, whereas learned advocate Ms. Nayana V. Panchal waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 who is the competent authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. 2. What is prayed by the petitioner in this petition is a direction to respondent No.2 authority to issue fresh certificate of birth after making necessary correction in the certificate regarding date of birth. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the birth certificate issued at the relevant time, erroneous date of birth was recorded by inadvertence. It is the say of the petitioner that he was born on 28.04.1976 at Akhaj Village, but the date of birth was erroneously recorded in the birth certificate as 28.08.1976. It appears that the petitioner made application dated 17.08.2015 to respondent No.2 authority praying for correction in his date of birth. Along with the application, the petitioner annexed certain documents in support of his case. It appears that the application of the petitioner is not responded, much less decided by the competent authority. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. P. P. Majmudar pointed out that along with the application itself, the petitioner produced copies of certifications and documents from the government and semi-government authorities such as copy of school leaving certificate, copy of Permanent Account Number card issued by Income Tax Department, copy of Passport issued by the passport authority etc. which mention the correct date of birth of the petitioner, that is, 28.04.1976. 4.1 Learned advocate for respofndent No.2 submitted that the authority responded to the petitioner by asking certain documents in support of his case which the authority wanted to consider. No such communication however is on record of the petition. It is also the say of learned advocate for respondent No.2 that it is only if the authority satisfied by evidence produced by the petitioner, the authority would be able to appropriately decide about correction in the entry of date of birth. 4.3 Be as it may, the fact remains that the application for correction in the entry of date of birth record and the birth certificate has remained undecided. 5. 4.3 Be as it may, the fact remains that the application for correction in the entry of date of birth record and the birth certificate has remained undecided. 5. Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act provides for correction or cancellation of entry ion the register of births and deaths and empowers the authority to correct the entries on being satisfied that any entry in the register of births and deaths kept by him is erroneous either in form or substance or has been fraudulently or improperly made. Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rule, 2004 deals with the correction of entry and an entry showing an error can be corrected with the authority upon inquiry into the matter. The competent authority is vested with power to correct an erroneous entry and for that, he may undertake an inquiry. The authority may correct or cancel the entry if it is proved to the satisfaction that such correction is required. Rule 11 contemplates the procedure to be followed in that regard. 5.1 This Court in Nitaben N. Patel Vs State of Gujarat [ 2008 (1) GLR 884 ] has held that when an authority is empowered to exercise powers under Section 15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the State Rules, 2004 and if the authority refuses to exercise its powers, a writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing appropriate directions to the authority. Following was laid down by the Court, (1) 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. (2) 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. (2) 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. (3) 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. 5.2 In another judgment dated 26.12.2011 by this Court in Jagdish Liladhar Vadera Vs State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.15139 of 2011, the Court relying on Nitaben N. Patel (supra), directed the authority to exercise powers under Rule 15 of the Act and decide the application of the petitioner regarding correction in date of birth. In other decision in Patel Ramilaben vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 9695 of 2015 decided on 10.08.2015, directions on the similar footing were issued by this court to the authority. 6. In view of aforesaid legal position, respondent No.2 is statutorily enjoined to consider the application of the petitioner for correcting the entry with regard to the date of birth. When the powers are statutorily conferred, the same has to be exercised by application of mind after considering the documents which may be produced by the petitioner in support of his request. The material and the documents which are relevant and germane has to go into consideration of the authority in his decisional process. 7. When the powers are statutorily conferred, the same has to be exercised by application of mind after considering the documents which may be produced by the petitioner in support of his request. The material and the documents which are relevant and germane has to go into consideration of the authority in his decisional process. 7. Since the powers above are with respondent No.2 competent authority and the authority has so far not exercised such powers in relation to the application and request of the petitioner, this petition could be allowed to the extent by directing respondent No.2 authority to consider the case of the petitioner in his application dated 17.08.2015 as expeditiously as possible and within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 8. It is observed that respondent No.2 authority is free and the petitioner is at liberty, to call for and/or produce such other documents in support of claim for correction of date of birth. 9. This Court has not gone into the merits of the case of the petitioner. It is for the authority to consider the case in accordance with law and on merits. 10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.” 6. The petitioner, therefore, again made an application dated 02.02.2016, however, the respondent no.2 rejected the said application vide order dated 22.02.2016 relying upon the Government Resolution dated 18.02.1974 and Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972. The petitioner, therefore, again filed Special Civil Application No.3882 of 2016 before this Court challenging the order dated 22.02.2016 and the co-ordinate bench of this Court (Coram : R. M. Chhaya, J.) vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2016 again directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 17.08.2015 keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat [ 2008(1) G.L.R. 884 ] and also taking into consideration the certificate and other documents which are attached with the record of the petition. The order dated 23.11.2016 reads as under: “1. Heard Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate with Ms. Shivangi Rana, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Janak Raval, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and Ms. Nayana Panchal, learned advocate for respondent no.2. 2. The order dated 23.11.2016 reads as under: “1. Heard Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate with Ms. Shivangi Rana, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Janak Raval, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and Ms. Nayana Panchal, learned advocate for respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by respondent no.2 and to direct the respondent no.2 to issue fresh birth certificate to the petitioner after making necessary corrections. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that according to the petitioner, the date of birth is 28.04.1976 and is born in village Akhaj, District Mehsana. It is the case of the petitioner that erroneously in the birth certificate, the date of birth is recorded as 28.08.1976. Whereas, according to the petitioner, the correct date of birth is 28.04.1976 for which the petitioner has relied upon the election card, aadhar card, driving license, pan card. 4. Considering the order impugned, prima facie, in opinion of this Court, the petitioner has been able to establish that the date of birth is 28.04.1976. Even in the impugned order, the learned authority has relied upon the policy decision of the Government dated 18.02.1974, which prescribes for school leaving certificate, matriculation certificate, secondary school certificate and extracts of local authorities. Considering the record which is brought on record of this petition, as observed hereinabove, in passport issued to the petitioner, the date of birth is recorded as 28.04.1976. Similarly, in PAN card, aadhar card, election card, driving license, the date of birth is 28.04.1976. Such material is to be considered by the authority while exercising the power under section 15. In prima facie opinion of this Court, the material which is placed on record is sufficient enough as evidence to prove that the date of birth is 28.04.1976. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2008(1) GLR 884 , the respondent no.2 is the statutory authority to consider such request. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2008(1) GLR 884 , the respondent no.2 is the statutory authority to consider such request. In light of the aforesaid therefore, the decision dated 22.02.2016 at Annexure-G to the petition is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent no.2 is hereby directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 17.08.2015 keeping in mind the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel (supra) and also taking into consideration the certificates and other documents which are attached with the record of this petition. The petitioner shall furnish certified/true copies of the said documents before the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 shall take a fresh decision on the said application within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order as well as the necessary documents by the petitioner. The petition is disposed of accordingly. D.S. permitted.” 7. The petitioner, therefore, again, for the third time, made an application on 14.12.2016 for correction of his date of birth along with his School Leaving Certificate, Election Card, Ration Card, Driving License etc. However, the respondent no.2, vide order dated 16.01.2017, again rejected the application of the petitioner for the third time on the ground that the documents provided by the petitioner came into existence after the date of birth, and therefore, again reliance was placed on the Government Resolution dated 18.02.1974 and the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972. Reliance was also placed on the Government Resolution dated 11.08.1989 and the notification dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar, Birth and Death and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat. 8. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No.658 of 2017 under the provisions of the Contempt Act, 1971. The said Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) was disposed of by order dated 16.12.2017 by the Division Bench of this Court. The said order reads as under : “1. This Misc. Civil Application is filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 23.11.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.3882 of 2016. 2. The said order reads as under : “1. This Misc. Civil Application is filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 23.11.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.3882 of 2016. 2. The dispute is with regard to the date of birth of the applicant entered into the record of the respondents. When the second respondent has passed an order dated 22.02.2016, rejecting the request of the applicant herein, the applicant approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.3882 of 2016. It is the case of the applicant that his date of birth is 28.04.1976 and place of birth is village Akhaj, District Mehsana. It is alleged that erroneously the date of birth is wrongly recorded as 28.08.1976, whereas the correct date of birth is 28.04.1976. When such order is challenged in the petition, this Court by order dated 23.11.2016, has allowed the petition by quashing the order dated 22.02.2016 with a direction to the second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 17.08.2015 afresh and also consider the certificates and other documents which are attached with the record of the petition. Further directions are also issued to the petitioner to furnish certified/true copies of the documents before the second respondent. The respondent No.2 shall take a fresh decision on the application within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 3. Consequent to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the second respondent passed an order dated 16.01.2017 again rejecting the request of the applicant by recording same reasons. 4. In this Misc. Civil Application, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that though certain documentary evidence, which are produced before the second respondent, establish the date of birth of the applicant as 28.04.1976, in spite of the same, without considering such documentary evidence as per the directions issued by this Court, the second respondent passed an order dated 16.01.2017 and thus he has committed willful and deliberate violation of the directions issued by this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Jesuretnam (Dead) v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in JT 2016(5) SC 388, wherein in contempt proceedings, while quashing the order which was not passed in accordance with the directions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to consider the matter afresh. 5. We have also heard learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the second respondent. In the affidavit-in-reply, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the order dated 16.01.2017 is in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Government and as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. 6. We have perused the order dated 16.01.2017 passed by the second respondent. Though certain reasons are recorded and documents relied on by the applicant are referred in the order, but there is no specific mention of rejection of such documentary evidence which are filed in support of the claim of the applicant. None the less the reasons are recorded while coming to the conclusion in support of the order of rejection and therefore we are of the view that there is no willful and deliberate violation of the directions issued by this Court by the respondents attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. So far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is concerned, such power is conferred with the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India; but at the same time, directions cannot be issued by this Court while considering the application filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. While granting liberty to challenge the order dated 16.01.2016, this application is dismissed.” 9. The petitioner, therefore, has preferred this petition. The petitioner has also filed a Draft Amendment producing on record the affidavit of the mother of the petitioner stating that petitioner was born on 28.04.1976. 10. Heard Mr.Jaimin Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1State and Ms.Nayana Panchal, learned advocate for the respondent no.2. Though served, none appears for the respondent no.3. 11. 10. Heard Mr.Jaimin Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1State and Ms.Nayana Panchal, learned advocate for the respondent no.2. Though served, none appears for the respondent no.3. 11. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that this is a third round of litigation and the respondent no.2 inspite of clear directions issued by this Court in two earlier round of litigations has rejected the application of the petitioner for correction of date of birth. 12. Learned advocate for the petitioner further relied upon the decision of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shukla, J.) passed in the case of Ghanshyambhai Maganbhai Talavia vs. State of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No.4596 of 2016 dated 15.07.2016. This Court has categorically held that the approach of the authority is casual resulting into inconvenience to the persons like petitioner and it is shirking the responsibility or avoiding obligation and duty imposed by the statute. 13. It was further submitted that as per the provision of Section 15 of the Act-1969, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of birth and 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 correct the error. The respondent nos.2 and 3, who are discharging their duties as Registrar of Births and Deaths are under lawful obligation to make such change in the Register of Birth depending upon the facts of the case under Section 15 of the Act-1969 and 11(4) and 11(5) of the Rules. 14. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have utterly ignored the order passed by this Court in earlier two rounds of litigations, and therefore, the notice under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act was also issued by the learned advocate for the petitioner. 15. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Jhaveri) passed in Special Civil Application No.321 of 2010 rendered on 02.02.2010 in the case of Rekhaben W/o. Sampatkumar Rachhadiya D/o. Chhaganbhai Karsan, wherein in similar facts, this Court, relying upon the decision in case of Neetaben Nareshbhai (supra), directed the respondent authority to carry out the amendment in the register of Births and Deaths maintained by the respondent under the provisions of the Act-1969. 16. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.M.Pancholi) in the case of Bharat Somdas Prajapati Through Poa Vikas Bharatbhai vs. State of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No.1184 of 2019 dated 22.02.2019, wherein after considering the effect of Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, which was considered again in Special Civil Application No.19054 of 2018, directed the respondent authority to correct the date of birth of the petitioner. 17. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vipulkumar Ramanlal Patel Through POA Patel Ramanlal passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.497 of 2012 in Special Civil Application No.2316 of 2012 dated 1055 of 2018, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, after considering the affidavit of the parents allowed the appeal and the competent authority was directed to issue a new birth certificate with correct date of birth. 18. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A. Y. Kogje) in the case of Sarojben Prahlad Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. passed in Special Civil Application No.5728 of 2018 dated 03.07.2019, wherein this Court directed the respondent to take a decision on the fresh application to be made before the authority after considering the documents produced before it. 19. This is a third round of litigation. The petitioner has approached before the respondent authority for correction of date of birth for three times. It is shocking that though on two occasions, this Court had directed the respondent authority to consider the application made by the petitioner for correction of the date of birth on the basis of documents produced before this Court, the respondent no.3 – authority has reiterated the same refusal by rejecting the application for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. 20. This Court has time and again observed that the respondents are taking casual approach resulting into hardship and harassment to the persons like the petitioner. 20. This Court has time and again observed that the respondents are taking casual approach resulting into hardship and harassment to the persons like the petitioner. This is a classic case of non-application of mind on the part of the respondent no.3 inspite of specific directions being issued by this Court in Special Civil Application No.18522 of 2015 and in Special Civil Application No.3882 of 2016 to take a decision with regard to correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. 21. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit of his mother stating that the date of birth of the petitioner is 28.04.1976 which is supported by various documents like School Leaving Certificate, Election Card, Ration Card, Aadhar Card, Driving License etc. 22. The provisions of Section 15 of the Act-1969 read with Rule 11(4) and 11(5) of the Rules are explained time and again by this Court holding that the respondent no.3 is having power under the provisions of the Act and Rules for correcting the entry with regard to the date of birth and such power has to be exercised by application of mind by the respondent no.3, more particularly, when this Court has directed twice for such exercise of power by the respondent-authority. 23. This Court, in the case of Ghanshyam Maganbhai Talavia (supra), Rekhaben W/o. Sampatkumar Rachhadiya and Bharatkumar Somdas Prajapati (supra) has held that the respondent-authority is required to pass necessary order for correction of date of birth after taking into consideration the documents produced before it. This Court in the case of Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel W/o. Khodabhai Joitaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No.19054 dated 16.01.2019 has considered the Circular dated 18.02.2016 which is relied upon by the respondent no.3 to reject the application of the petitioner as under : “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. 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.” 24. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vipulkumar Ramanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat in L.P.A. no. 497 of 2012 in S.C.A. no. 2316 of 2012 rendered on 10.05.2012 has also directed the respondent-authority to pass an order of correction of date of birth as under : “3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Virat Popat for the appellant. By an additional affidavit, the appellant has filed affidavits of his parents namely Ramanlal Patel and Savitaben Patel. In the said affidavits, they have made a statement on oath that the appellant Vipul was born on 14.7.1978 and by mistake the date of birth of Vipul is mentioned in the birth register as 25.8.1978. 4. By an additional affidavit, the appellant has filed affidavits of his parents namely Ramanlal Patel and Savitaben Patel. In the said affidavits, they have made a statement on oath that the appellant Vipul was born on 14.7.1978 and by mistake the date of birth of Vipul is mentioned in the birth register as 25.8.1978. 4. Though the notice of admission of the appellant is served to the respondents, respondent no.2 Talati-cum-Mantri has not appeared himself or through his advocate. 5. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel V/s The State of Gujarat and Ors., reported at 2008(1) GLH 556 , by which the learned Single Judge has held that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the authority concerned has failed to exercise its statutory powers envisaged in Section 15 of The Registration of Births and Deaths Act. 6. We are satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the appellant as well as the affidavits filed by the parents of the appellant that the correct date of birth of the appellant is 14.7.1978. In view of this, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.2.2012 in Special Civil Application No.2316 of 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to issue a new birth certificate showing the date of birth of the appellant as 14.7.1978. Direct service permitted.” 25. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid fact situation and the various decisions passed by this Court from time to time, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decisions. 26. I am satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner as well as the affidavit filed by the mother of the petitioner that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 28.04.1976. The impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 dated 16.01.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent no.3 is hereby directed to make necessary correction in the Register of the Birth on the basis of affidavit of the mother of the petitioner as well as other documentary evidence produced by the petitioner before this Court and issue a new birth certificate showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 28.04.1976. 27. The respondent no.3 is hereby directed to make necessary correction in the Register of the Birth on the basis of affidavit of the mother of the petitioner as well as other documentary evidence produced by the petitioner before this Court and issue a new birth certificate showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 28.04.1976. 27. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to cost.