Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 490 (BOM)

Rameshchandra v. Secretary, Village Panchayat

2020-03-03

N.B.SURYAWANSHI

body2020
JUDGMENT : N.B. Suryawanshi, J. 1. Heard. The petitioner challenges the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur below Exh. 1 in M.C.C. No. 318 of 2016, filed by the petitioner under Section 13(3) of the Births and Death Registration Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Said Act" for short). It was contended by the petitioner that he is resident of Mouza: Mana, Tahsil: Murtizapur, District: Akola since his birth and his birth date is 06/07/1960. Though his birth took place at the residential house at village Mana, inadvertently birth of the petitioner was not registered in the Gram Panchayat record. He claimed that birth needs to be registered considering his future prospects. He further contended that he applied for birth certificate in Village Panchayat, Mana. However, he was informed that his birth is not registered at Village Panchayat. He, therefore, prayed that his application be allowed and his birth be registered on 06/07/1960. Along with said application the petitioner submitted the communication from the Village Panchayat that his birth is not recorded in the Village Panchayat. He has produced copy of relevant extract of his service book, wherein his date of birth is recorded as 11/05/1957, photo copies of the Aadhar Card and PAN Card, wherein date of birth is recorded as 11/05/1957. The petitioner also relied upon two mark-sheets issued by the office of District Education Officer, District: Gwalior issued on 07/09/2016 and the second statement of marks issued by the Divisional Middle Board Examination Centre, Lashkar (M.P.) on 17/05/1973 wherein also his birth date is recorded as 06/07/1960. 2. The petitioner examined himself in support of the application and the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner has joined service of Central Railway on the basis that he was born on 11/05/1957 and now the petitioner is on the verge of retirement. There are two birth dates of the petitioner i.e. "06/07/1960" and "11/05/1957". But birth date of 1957 was also recorded in Aadhar Card. Thus, the learned Magistrate was of the view that since there are documents showing two different birth dates of the petitioner appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to get declaration from the Civil Court as to the correct date of his birth and thereafter he may come before the Court seeking direction as prayed in the application. Thus, the learned Magistrate was of the view that since there are documents showing two different birth dates of the petitioner appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to get declaration from the Civil Court as to the correct date of his birth and thereafter he may come before the Court seeking direction as prayed in the application. This order is impugned in the present petition. 3. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for the respondent No. 2/State. Respondent No. 1, though served, has not caused appearance. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that in view of the fact that the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 06/07/1960 as reflected in Statements of Marks Exh. 13 and 14, issued by the Competent Authorities, the learned Magistrate ought to have accepted the case of the petitioner and ought to have directed registration of the birth of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate ought to have decided the case on merits instead of relegating the petitioner to the Civil Court. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate needs to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.G.P. supports the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate contending that at the time of entry in the service, the date of birth is recorded as "11/05/1957", the same birth date was also reflected in Pan Card and Aadhar Card. On realizing this, the petitioner got his birth date on Aadhar Card corrected as "06/07/1960". He, therefore, states that the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. On perusal of the service book, it is clear that at the time of entry of petitioner in service of Central Railway on 20/05/1979 the petitioner's birth date was recorded as 11/05/1957. Even on the Aadhar Card the birth date of the petitioner was recorded as 11/05/1957. The same birth date is also recorded in PAN Card Exh. 19 placed before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner, on the verge of retirement, moved this application under Section 13(3) of the said Act. Even on the Aadhar Card the birth date of the petitioner was recorded as 11/05/1957. The same birth date is also recorded in PAN Card Exh. 19 placed before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner, on the verge of retirement, moved this application under Section 13(3) of the said Act. While deposing before the learned Magistrate in support of the application, the petitioner realized that on the Aadhar Card also his birth date is mentioned as 11/05/1957 and on realizing that he got birth date on Aadhar Card corrected as 06/07/1960. 7. Thus, it is clear that at the time of appointment in Central Railway as Substitute Gangman, the petitioner has given his birth date as 11/05/1957. Thereafter at the time of applying for PAN Card/Aadhar Card he has given his birth date as 11/05/1957, which is reflected on both the documents. Thus, the petitioner at the fag end of his service came up before the learned Magistrate seeking direction to take entry of his birth on 06/07/1960 by taking recourse to Section 13(3) of the Said Act. Since two different birth dates were reflected in the documents placed before the learned Magistrate he was justified in rejecting the application on the ground that it is not possible to choose which one of the two dates of birth of the applicant is correct. The provisions of Section 13(3) of the said Act are not for getting adjudication of disputed date of birth of the aggrieved party. It is settled legal position that at the fag end of service the person is not entitled to seek his birth date to be corrected. In light of the aforesaid observations, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.