( 1 ) LEAVE to delete Respondent No. 3, since mr. Majmudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has stated that he is not pressing the prayer at 22 (C) at this stage. as even otherwise also, the same will be consequential on account of the change. if affected, in the register maintained under the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' for short ).

( 2 ) RULE. Ms. Kotecha, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for respondents No. 1 and 2. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard.

( 3 ) THE short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner was born on 21. 6. 1992. However, at the time of birth in the register, when the entry was recorded, the sex was mentioned as 'female'. The petitioner studied up to 10th Standard and even the School Leaving Certificate is also issued as if the petitioner is a female known as 'shraddhaben'. As per the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner has developed the physical character as that of a male and the petitioner thereafter was examined by various doctors, whose certificates are produced namely; Dr. Nirmal A. Vaniawala, dr. Bhupendra N. Kharwar and Dr. Pradip r. Atodaria and it has been certified by the aforesaid private doctors that the petitioner has developed physical organ of a male and, therefore, the petitioner has been declared as male person. Since the the entry of the register maintained under the Act the sex of the petitioner is shown as female, the petitioner is seeking alteration in the entry as male and, therefore, under these circumstances, the present petition.

( 4 ) HEARD Mr. Majmudar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and ms. Kotecha, learned AGP for the State authorities.

( 5 ) UPON hearing the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, it appears that the issues arise for consideration in the present petition are the same as they were considered by the Division Bench of this court (Coram: D. M. Dharmadhikari, C. J. And C. K. Thakkar, J.) in the case of Mulla faizal @ Fazilabanu Suleman Ibrahim v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , reported in 2000 (2) GLH, 1. In the said case, it was also for the change of entry in the register maintained under the Act from female to male. This Court had, inter alia, observed as under:

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities, who opposed the claim of the appellant for change of entry regarding his sex and in support of this stand, placed reliance on the letter dated 15. 10. 1999 of the Government sent by the Deputy Director of Census operation to the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths and Director of Health Services and Family Welfare, Himachal Pradesh on a query made by the authority for clarification to them. The relevant part of the letter dated 15. 10. 1990 reads : ". . . I am to invite a reference to your letter No. 19/25/77-Med-II-Vol. VIII-1412 dated 01. 03. 1990 on the above subject and to say that as per the provisions of the RBD act, 1969, the particulars of vital events registered have to be confined only to the details relating to the event at the relevant time of birth or death. Any subsequent change in the details cannot find a place in the register of births/deaths unless it is provided for in the Act. In the instant case, reported change of sex of Miss Neera Devi from female to male consequent upon a surgical operation is a subsequent change after the event had been registered. Therefore, this change cannot be recorded in the registration records. In this connection, your kind attention is invited to section 15 of the RBD Act, 1969, which provides for correction and cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths where such entry is found to be erroneous in the form or substance or has been fraudulently or improperly made. The aforesaid section, therefore, cannot be invoked for correcting subsequent change in sex as there was no registration of birt