( 1 ) BY means of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner challenges the action of respondent No. 2, that is, the Registrar of Births and Deaths Registration Department, Navsari Municipality, in not acceding to the request of the petitioner in registering her name in the Birth Certificate by misinterpreting the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (the Act for short) and the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Rules, 1985 (the Rules for short) and, therefore, prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondent - authorities to register the name of the petitioner in the Births Register in Column No. 1 of the Birth Certificate at Annexure -C to the petition by declaring the action and interpretation of the respondent - authorities to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present petition briefly stated are as under:2. 1. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the daughter of Arvindkumar J Pancholi and Minaxiben Arvindkumar Pancholi and was born on 5/03/1974 at Navsari as her father was working as Medical Officer at Navsari under the Health Department of the State of Gujarat. Immediately on the next day, her father registered her birth before respondent No. 2 as prescribed under various provisions of the Act and the Rules and her birth was registered at Registration No. 495 on March 6, 1974. According to the Hindu Ritual, as her name was not decided, her name could not be entered into at the time of registering her birth and the certificate as prescribed under section 17 of the Act has been issued without her name. 2. 2. IT is stated that in the said certificate it is mentioned that the name of the child is to be registered within one year from the date of the registration of the birth or else late fee of Rs. 2. 00 will have to be paid for such late registration and nothing further is mentioned in the Birth certificate. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner could not be registered as the father of the petitioner had resigned from the services due to some personal reasons and had shifted to Mehsana. However, because of the fact that no time limit has been mentioned in the Birth Certificate, the name of the petitioner could not be registered due to oversight of the father of the petitioner. 2. 3. THE petitioner states that thereafter she was admitted in the school at Mehsana on the basis of the aforesaid Birth Certificate and thereafter she studied and completed her graduation in Mehsana. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the father of the petitioner shifted to Gandhinagar in the year 1995 and since then the petitioner is residing at Gandhinagar at the address mentioned in the cause title. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner is also mentioned in the ration card issued by the Civil Supplies Department of the State of Gujarat. 2. 4. IT is further stated that recently the petitioner is engaged with one Hitesh Ratilal Trivedi who is a citizen of United States of America. It is further stated that as the petitioners fiance is a citizen of United States, naturally the petitioner shall have to settle down in USA. Therefore the petitioner has applied for passport in the Passport Department under the External Affairs Ministry of the Union of India and while applying for the passport, the birth certificate at Annexure C to the petition was submitted alongwith the affidavit of the parents of the petitioner and after detailed inquiry, the petitioner is given the passport by the concerned department. 2. 5. THE petitioner states that in the meantime it was decided by the family members of the petitioner as wall as her fiance that the marriage of the petitioner with her fiance is to be solemnized in US and therefore the fiance of the petitioner applied for Fianc