JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. RULE. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. Though served, none appears for the respondent No. 2. 3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of respondent No. 2 for not correcting name and date of birth in the Birth Certificate of the petitioner as Alkaben Ramanbhai Patel” and “07.11.1971” respectively. Due to some clerical error, name and date of birth of the petitioner is wrongly shown as “Baby” and “16.10.1971” respectively in the Birth Certificate issued by the respondent authority. 4. The brief facts of the case are as under: 4.1 The present petitioner was born at Mauje Lali, District Kheda. At the time of registration, name and date of birth of the petitioner is wrongly registered as “Baby” and “16.10.1971 in the birth records respectively maintained by the respondent no. 2. As a result, the competent authority, at the relevant time, had issued a certificate of birth showing the name and date of birth of the petitioner as “Baby” and “16.10.1971” respectively. 4.2. The petitioner had approached the respondent No. 2 for correction in the name and date of birth in her Birth Certificate by way of filing an application dated 20.12.2019, however, the respondent No. 2 rejected the same vide order dated 24.01.2020 for the reason that he has no power to make any correction. It is the case of the petitioner that her application is rejected by placing reliance on the circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat stating that the correction in the name and date of birth is not permissible as per the guidelines issued in the said circular. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities, while placing reliance on the circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the State authority, which has been subsequently withdrawn by the State authority vide order dated 02.12.2021, has rejected the application of the petitioner. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may be set aside. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel W/o Khodabhai Joitaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 2019 (3) GLR 1866 . 6. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may be set aside. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel W/o Khodabhai Joitaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 2019 (3) GLR 1866 . 6. Learned AGP has submitted that the impugned order is passed by the respondent No. 2 denying the correction in the date of birth for the reason that he does not have power in correcting so. He has further submitted that the State authority has withdrawn the said circular dated 18.02.2016. 7. While passing the impugned order the respondent authority referred to the Circular dated 18.02.2016, and is confined to the reason mentioned therein with regard to his lack of power in making correction. At this stage, I may with profit refer to the decisions of this Court. In case of Sukumar Mehta vs. District Registrar, Births and Deaths, 1993 (1) GLR 93 . This Court, after examining the provisions of section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 has held thus: “In my opinion, the Act is silent about the contingency for subsequent correction of entry already made in Birth Register by correcting the name of the child at the instance of the parents, his is the case of unmindful legislative omission. This is classic case of casus omissi, i.e. circumstances concerning which an Act is silent. The question is how to deal with such contingencies? Should the Court leave the litigant in sheer helpless condition asking him to wait till the legislature curds the defect by providing for the omission? Can the Court escape the responsibility of considering these unforseen contingencies? However, I cannot ignore the modern tendency in Courts to take the view that if a case is entirely un-provided for by a Statute, either directly or indirectly, then it must remain nobody's child - a luckless orphan of the law (In Re: Leicester Permanent Building Society, 1942 Ch. 340). Same was the view of Devlin L.J. in Gladstone vs. Bower, 1960 (2) QB 384 when he observed “we cannot legislate for casus omiss.” This tendency has given rise to inconvenient results. One option left for me is to express regrets for a statutory lacuna and to hope that it will be remedied by legislation and occasionally the hope is fulfilled, even if tardily. One option left for me is to express regrets for a statutory lacuna and to hope that it will be remedied by legislation and occasionally the hope is fulfilled, even if tardily. However, in my opinion, in this case there is “impalpable line” of distinction which should enable the Court to come out of helplessness. In this case” the caption of Sec. 15 gives general indication to give power to correct the entry in the Birth Register. However, specific case of correction of name of the child already entered is omitted to be provided for. When the entry is erroneous, there is power to correct. When it is factually improperly made, there is power of correction. Question is when entry is rightfully made can it be corrected by resort to this power? In my opinion, once power to correct an entry already made in the Birth Register is conceded, it should legitimately take within its sweep the correction of entries rightfully made. It is the correction of the name of the child at the instance of the parents or wards. What possible objections can there be in reading such power in the authority if power to correct erroneous entry is conceded? The omission in the present case appears to be non-deliberate. In my opinion, omission being not deliberate and not supported by cogent reasons it would not be hazardous to read “implied will of the Legislators” in this provision so as to authorise the Registrar to correct the name of the child at the instance of the parents. I, therefore, hold that there is power in the Registrar to correct the entry already made by entertaining the application of the parents. In undertaking this exercise, I am reminded of what C.K. Alien said in his book, Law in the Making: “Judges must and do carry out the express will of the legislature as faithfully as they can, but there is a wide margin in almost every statute where the Courts cannot be said to be following any will except their own. In undertaking this exercise, I am reminded of what C.K. Alien said in his book, Law in the Making: “Judges must and do carry out the express will of the legislature as faithfully as they can, but there is a wide margin in almost every statute where the Courts cannot be said to be following any will except their own. The statute then becomes, as to great part of it, not a direct “command” but simply part of the social and legal material which judges have to handle according to their customary process of judicial logic.” Thus, the Coordinate Bench has held that while exercising powers under section 15 of the Act, the Registrar can correct an entry already made in the Birth Register, if the same is conceded, and such correction should legitimately take within its sweep the correction of entries rightfully made. 8. In case of Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel W/o Khodabhai Joitaram Patel, 2019 (3) GLR 1866 , this Court, after considering various judgments of this Court has enunciated thus: “21 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.” It is held that the Registrar can correct the entries made in the Birth Certificate, after making inquiry and after going through the relevant material which may be produced by the applicant. Such correction and cancellation in the entries with relation to the name and date of birth comes within the purview of powers under section 15 of the Act. 9. Thus, the impugned letter/order dated 24.01.2020 is quashed and set aside. Since the same is passed by placing reliance on the circular dated 18.02.2016, which is subsequently withdrawn by the State Government. The respondent No. 2 is directed to pass a fresh order on the application filed by the petitioner, by following necessary procedure as envisaged in Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004. Necessary order shall be passed and communicated within a period of 04 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court. It will also be open for the petitioner to file a fresh application accompanied with necessary documents in support of her case. 10. The present writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted. 11. In view of the order passed in the main matter, civil application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.