ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs: "15. (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.06.2023, annexed at Ann. A, passed by respondent no. 2 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to correct the Date of Birth of petitioner's daughter - Radhika from "23.09.1998" to "23.08.1998" in Birth Certificate and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide amended Birth Certificate. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Heard Mr. Hardik Muchhala, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Ramesh Chauhan, the the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 and Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, the learned AGP appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner herein applied for correction in date of birth in the birth certificate of petitioner's daughter Radhika's from "23.09.1998" to 23.08.1998" by first application dated 3.5.2023, however, there were certain anomalies in the said application and in view thereof the petitioner filed further application dated 5.6.2023, which came to be declined by the respondent authority on 21.6.2023, duly produced at Annexure "A". 4. Mr. Muchhala, the learned advocate submitted that the petitioner approached the competent authority by first application dated 3.5.2023, duly produced at page-22, along with birth certificate of daughter of the petitioner, affidavit by persons known to the petitioner's daughter, School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner's daughter Radhika, PAN Card and Aadhar Card of the daughter of the petitioner, however, there were certain anomalies in the said application dated 3.5.2023. The respondent No.2, by order dated 24.5.2023, stated that, on 23.8.1998, there is no entry with regard to the birth of daughter of the petitioner Radhika and, therefore, declined to consider the said application dated 3.5.2023. The respondent No.2, by order dated 24.5.2023, stated that, on 23.8.1998, there is no entry with regard to the birth of daughter of the petitioner Radhika and, therefore, declined to consider the said application dated 3.5.2023. 5.1 The petitioner filed further application on 5.6.2023, pointing out the mistake committed in application dated 3.5.2023, and again requested the respondent No.2 authority to make necessary correction in date of birth in the birth certificate of petitioner's daughter Radhika's from "23.09.1998" to 23.08.1998", however, the said application came to be rejected by the respondent authority on the ground that in affidavit duly produced along with application dated 3.5.2023, the date of registration is mentioned as 23.8.1998, however, in the birth register, at Serial No.3, the name of daughter of the petitioner Radhika Dineshbhai Bhesania is not registered. The said further application dated 5.6.2023 came to be declined on the ground that by virtue of Circular dated 2.12.2021, which is duly produced at page-21, the power to correct the date of birth as per Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 stands cancelled and hence no change can be made in the birth certificate under the said Section 15 of the Act. It was submitted that the competent authority erred in holding that the powers under Section 15 are cancelled and on that ground alone, the present petition is required to be allowed. 6. Mr. Ramesh Chauhan, the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 authority submitted that such change, as prayed for, by the petitioner after a period of 25 years, is rightly not accepted or considered by the competent authority. It was submitted that the petitioner could have addressed the application and prayed for the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner since she is a major. Mr. Chauhan, the learned advocate for the respondent authority submitted that no error said to have been attributed to the respondent authority. 7. Mr. Muchhala, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in rejoinder to the said submission, submitted that it is only the petitioner-father, who could file affidavit to explain the error that was committed while recording the date of birth in petitioner’s birth certificate and an affidavit could be filed to the said effect, and in view thereof, the application came to be filed by the petitioner herein. 8. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, having considering the documents produced on record, the first application seeking change in the date of birth of petitioner’s daughter’s from 23.09.1998 to 23.08.1998, dated 3.5.2023, which is duly produced at page-22, reflects that all the documents required for consideration of the application are produced by the petitioner, however, there was error in reciting the date of register i.e. 23.9.1998 came to be stated, however, the date of registration of birth-date of the petitioner's daughter, as per Sr. No.3 of the register, is 23.8.1998. 9. The petitioner filed another application on 5.6.2023 wherein it is stated that permission be granted to change the date of registration of birth date of the petitioner's daughter from 23.9.1998 to 23.8.1998, however, the change as prayed for in the petitioner’s daughter’s birth certificate came to be declined on the ground that by virtue of Circular dated 2.12.2021, duly produced at Page-21, the powers to carry out change in the date of birth of the petitioner’s daughter’s birth certificate, stands cancelled by the said Circular. 10. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.185 of 2023, and the paragraphs No. 5 and 6 of the said order reads thus : "5. As noted above, learned Single Judge was satisfied, more particularly having regard to the authenticate documents such as Pan Card, School Leaving Certificate and Aadhar Card, which showed the date of birth of the petitioner to issue the direction in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. They were the documents which could form valid basis of correcting the date of birth as recorded in these documents, which included School Leaving Certificate. 5.1 Even otherwise, the provisions of section 15 of the Act permits the correction. It says that if it is proved to the satisfaction that the entry in the birth or death register is erroneous and required to be corrected, the error could be corrected. 5.2 When the statutory provision permitted such correction and learned Single Judge found on merits that such correction was justified, no submission at the end of Registrar of Birth and Death could hold good. 5.3 It was contended that the petitioner approached with the prayer to correct the date of birth after 19 years. 5.2 When the statutory provision permitted such correction and learned Single Judge found on merits that such correction was justified, no submission at the end of Registrar of Birth and Death could hold good. 5.3 It was contended that the petitioner approached with the prayer to correct the date of birth after 19 years. Not only that, the learned Single Judge has taken into account the said aspect and it was on the basis of the authenticate documents, the correction was permitted. The petitioner was entitled to seek such correction even after passage of time. 6. While the order passed by the learned Single Judge could be said to be eminently proper and legal, when the Registrar of Birth and Death has chosen to challenge the said order, this Court prima facie finds that it is extremely doubtful whether the authority-Registrar of Birth and Death can be said to be party interested." 11. It is also apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2008 (1) GLR 884 , wherein it has observed in paragraph 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. 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. 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.” 12. Considering the facts of the present case, it is also apposite to refer to Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004, which read thus:- “15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register 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.” Rule 11 of the Rules of 2004 reads thus :- "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.... " 13. In the opinion of this Court, the said understanding arrived at by respondent No.2 is erroneous and the same is contrary to what is stated in the Circular dated 2.12.2021. The Notification dated 2.12.2021, cancels the earlier Notification dated 12.8.2009 and 18.2.2016. A notification cannot cancel the powers granted under Section 15 and the said understanding by the respondent No.2, is required to be quashed and set-aside and the same is quashed and set-aside. 14. The respondent authority is directed to take into consideration all the documents that are produced by the petitioner herein in the application dated 3.5.2023 and to make changes in the petitioner’s daughter’s birth certificate, within a period of 4 weeks, from the receipt of the order, in line with the ratio as laid down by this Court in LPA No.185 of 2023 and 2008 (1) GLR 884 , read with Section 15 of the Act, which provides that respondent No.2 has powers to make changes in the birth certificate, taking into consideration the documents that are produced on record and Rule 11 of the Rules, 2004. With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed in part. Direct Service is permitted.