A.S. Oka, J.

1. Yesterday, the parties were put to notice that the petition will be heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The Petitioner, who claims to be unmarried, delivered a female child on 7th November 2014. The Petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is praying for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the first Respondent – Mumbai Municipal Corporation to issue a birth certificate of the child without incorporating the name of the natural father of the child. This prayer is based on the decision of the Apex Court dated 6th July, 2015 in ABC Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28367 of 2011). We may note that under the last order dated 13th February 2018, we had directed that the names of the Petitioner and the added Respondent shall be masked in the orders of this Court and they shall be described as ABC and XYZ respectively.

3. According to the averments made in the petition, on 20th August 2015, the Advocate for the Petitioner served a notice to the Commissioner of the First Respondent-Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Along with the notice, he forwarded a copy of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ABC (Supra). By the said legal notice, the Petitioner contended that the hospital record wrongly mentions that she was married and an affidavit of the Petitioner affirmed before a Notary Public on 20th August 2015 was forwarded to the First Respondent Mumbai Municipal Corporation in which the Petitioner expressed a desire that the name of the father of the child should not be disclosed in the birth certificate. The letter dated 10th August 2016 Exhibit-D to the petition, issued to the Petitioner by the Medical Officer of Health, shows that the request of the Petitioner was processed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. However, by the said letter, the Petitioner was called upon to produce a copy of the order of Court requiring deletion of the name of the father from the original birth certificate.

4. An affidavit in reply has been filed by Dr. Anita Inamdar, Medical Officer of Health, R/C Ward Office dated 20th July 2017. The stand taken is that there is no power vesting in the Municipal Corporation to amend the entries in the Register of Births. Alongwith the said affidavit, the Medical Officer produced a copy of the application made by the Petitioner on 2nd September 2015 as well as her affidavit dated 21st August 2015. Alongwith the said affidavit, a copy of the record of Vibha Care Home (The Family Hospital) is also annexed which includes a form which bears the signature of the Petitioner on 7th November 2014 as well as her thumb impression. It also bears the signature of the applicant's mother. The said document is at Pages 84 and 85 which mentions all the particulars including the name of the father of the child and his occupation. A copy of Form No.1 prescribed under Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000 (for short “the said Rules”) is also annexed to the affidavit. There are two parts of Form No.1. First part on the left hand side contains the legal information to be added to the Birth Register. The second part on the right hand side contains the Statistical Information to be detached and sent for statistical processing. As far as the left hand side is concerned, it bears the signature of the Petitioner. The name of the father of the child is mentioned against the relevant clause therein. The lower part of the portion on the left hand side is required to be filled in by the Registrar which bears the round seal of Vibha Care Home, Mumbai. Someone has signed below the round seal. In the right hand side of the Form No.1, the father's education and occupation have been mentioned. It also mentions that the age of the Petitioner at the time of marriage as 19 years. The copy of the form which is annexed on Page 86 shows that the same was required to be signed by the person giving information. On the said porti