JUDGMENT : 1. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr.Ajay Pandav waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer as under:- “7. B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ for directing the respondent to enter afresh and correct details of the date of birth of the petitioner in column no.3 of the birth certificate, issued to the petitioner from “17.05.1979” to “07.05.1979”; on the basis of the relevant documents and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue fresh birth certificate of the petitioner.” 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that earlier also, the petitioner had filed petition before this Court being SCA No.3697 of 2018 and Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said petition by order dated 15.06.2018, wherein it was observed as under:- “2. At the outset, while matter is taken up for hearing the objection is raised that there is a specific mechanism provided under Section 15 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 and, therefore, the at the level of Sub Registrar this correction is not possible. In view of such objection which has been made the petitioner is inclined to approach by way of initiating the proceedings under Section 15 of the Act and as and when such application is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be expeditiously dealt with on its own merits in accordance with law. 3. The Court has not expressed any opinion on merits with regard to the claim of the petitioner, however, it would be open for the respondent authority while dealing with proceedings under Section 15 of the Act to examine all relevant documents. 4. With these observations, petition is disposed of....” 3.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that thereafter also, the petitioner was constrained to file petition before this Court being SCA No.20591 of 2018 for the very purpose and this Court by order dated 09.04.2019 had directed the authority to consider the application of the petitioner to rectify the date of birth in the birth certificate. 3.2 It is submitted that despite this position, once again, the respondent has declined to carry out the necessary amendment by issuing communication dated 20.05.2019. 3.2 It is submitted that despite this position, once again, the respondent has declined to carry out the necessary amendment by issuing communication dated 20.05.2019. 3.3 It is submitted that the petitioner is at no fault and it is due to mistake on the part of the respondent authority that the date of birth of the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as 17.05.1979 instead of 07.05.1979. It is submitted that due to error on the part of the authority filling up the details in the birth certificate, incorrect date has been mentioned. It is submitted that the petitioner should not suffer on account of such a minor mistake and that too when the petitioner is having all relevant documents and evidence suggesting and drawing inference to the effect that the date of birth of the petitioner is 07.05.1979 and not 17.05.1979. However, the same has been wrongly mentioned in the birth certificate issued to the petitioner. 3.4 It is submitted that the notification clearly stipulates that such rectifications are not permitted. However, if such rectifications are to be made, a proper and detailed inquiry is required to be carried out and if it is found out that the rectification is required to be made, the same is permitted. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, in all the documents, date of birth is 07.05.1979 and not 17.05.1979. Further in the present case, the only difference is of one number, which can be a human error and further without detailed investigation, the same cannot be confirmed, whereas in the present case, the authority, without going into detailed investigation, straightaway citing notification, rejected the representation of the petitioner. It is submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner in all Government and non-government documents is true and correct and is out of cloud of any suspicion and doubt. Therefore, now there is no reason for the respondent to register the correct date of birth of the petitioner in column No.3 of the birth certificate issued to the petitioner. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondent opposed the petition by referring to and relying upon the affidavit in reply of one Mr.Mukeshkumar Bababhai Prajapati, wherein it is stated as under:- “16. I say and submit that there is no any mistake committed by the present answering respondent in registering birth of the present petitioner on dated-17.05.1979. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondent opposed the petition by referring to and relying upon the affidavit in reply of one Mr.Mukeshkumar Bababhai Prajapati, wherein it is stated as under:- “16. I say and submit that there is no any mistake committed by the present answering respondent in registering birth of the present petitioner on dated-17.05.1979. I say that the said birth was registering by the father of the present petitioner who is eyewitness of the birth of the present petitioner and therefore, there is no mistake committed by the present res. Authority. A copy of the birth register showing the registering birth of the petitioner on dated-17.05.1979 with the respondent authority is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-R/1. 17. I say that the present petitioner misguide to this Hon'ble Court saying that the Notification dated-18.02.2016 is in respect of the changing the name only. As such, the said fact is not relevant to this petition. That, the present petitioner admitted the Notification dated-18.02.2016 regarding the entries in public record is a relevant fact and final evidence and entry made into the register of the death and birth are prima facie evidence. I say that one hand, the present petitioner stated that “.... However are not conclusive proves”. As such, the present petitioner stating different version on one issue. Hence, the present petition should be dismissed on said ground also. 18. I say and submit that so far as other relevant documents regarding his date of birth, i.e. dated-07.05.1979 is concerned, the same were obtained by the present petitioner. I say that the said documents cannot be issue after verification of the birth certificate and at that point of time, the present petitioner produced his birth certificate to the concerned authority and therefore, at that point of time, the present petitioner not realized that his date of birth is wrong. I say that the petitioner came to know the said mistake in the year of 2016 and therefore, the present petitioner committed serious mistake thereon and therefore, present petition should be dismissed.” 4.1 Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is having a brother, viz. Naileshkumar, who also shares the same date of birth, i.e. 07.05.1979. However, the petitioner has failed to produce any document to indicate the date of birth of said Naileshkumar. 5. Naileshkumar, who also shares the same date of birth, i.e. 07.05.1979. However, the petitioner has failed to produce any document to indicate the date of birth of said Naileshkumar. 5. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the date of birth as per the petitioner is 07.05.1979 whereas date of birth as recorded in the birth certificate in question is 17.05.1979. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate and along with his application for change in the date of birth, the petitioner has produced several documents like Gujarat Secondary Education Board certificate, PAN card, driving licence, passport, visa issued by USA, identity card issued by Bar Council of Gujarat and Ahmedabad Bar Association. All these documents go onto indicate date of birth of the petitioner to be 07.05.1979. 6. The directions contained in the previous order of this Court would indicate that the respondent would be within his jurisdiction to carry out the rectification of date of birth as is interpreted by the judgment of this Court in case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2008 (1) GLR 884 and in case of Sachin Natwarlal Patel Vs. Registrar of Births and Deaths cum Talati cum Mantri in SCA No.9564 of 2008 dated 07.01.2019. 7. The interpretation of the circular by the respondent authority not being authorized to carry out correction is unfounded. The Court has perused copy of the register produced along with the affidavit, which shows that date of birth in such register against the name of the petitioner is 17.05.1979. However, close scrutiny of such document will go on to indicate that the entries made prior to the present entry and subsequent to the present entry are starting from 08.06.1979 to 27.06.1979. Therefore page of register which consistently contains date of birth of the month of June 1979 has only one entry of the month of May 1979. This would put to doubt the entry made in the register of births and deaths and in such case therefore, benefit should go in favour of the petitioner, more particularly when other supporting documents indicate the correct date of birth being 07.05.1979. Besides, the correction sought is only innocuous and the petitioner does not seek to derive any disadvantage out of such a change. 8. Besides, the correction sought is only innocuous and the petitioner does not seek to derive any disadvantage out of such a change. 8. For the aforesaid reasoning, the impugned order of the respondent dated 20.05.2019 is set aside and the respondent is directed to issue fresh birth certificate reflecting date of birth as “07.05.2019”. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.