Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed that the respondent authority be directed to change the name of the petitioner in the birth certificate issued in her favour from Jaywantiben to Manishaben.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rahevar for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Pathak for the respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for respondent nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was born on 23.5.1974 at village Talodh, Taluka Gandevi, District Navsari. In the birth certificate issued by the respondent authority, her name is mentioned as Jaywantiben by mistake. It is pointed out by learned advocate for the petitioner from the documentary evidence produced on record that in all the other documents namely School Leaving Certificate, Aadhar Card, Pan Card, Election Card and Passport, her name is mentioned as Manishaben. It is submitted that recently the petitioner has applied for permanent residence- ship of Canada and therefore the concerned authorities are insisting for her birth certificate wherein the name of the petitioner is recorded as Jaywantiben. The petitioner has, therefore, made a representation to the respondent authority on 7.12.2018 and requested to correct her name in the birth certificate. However, the respondent authority, by communication dated 12.12.2018 rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that circular dated 18.2.2016 is issued by the Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the said communication and contended that under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 ('the Act of 1969' for short) and the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004 ('Rules of 2004' for short), the respondent authority is empowered to correct the entries namely name and/or the birth certificate after making necessary inquiry. In the present case, without making any inquiry, the respondent authority has refused to make necessary correction in the birth certificate and simply placed reliance upon the circular dated 18.2.2016.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 16.1.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.19054 of 2018 wherein this Court has considered the similar issue and considered the circular dated 18.2.2016 issued by the concerned authority and thereafter this Court issued necessary directions to the respondent authorities. It is, therefore, urged that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid order passed by this Court and therefore appropriate direction be issued to the respondent authority.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent Mr.Munshaw has opposed this petition and referred the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.2. It is submitted that there is a delay of 44 years in making such application for correction and therefore the respondent authority has not entertained the application of the petitioner. It is further contended that the respondent authority is bound by the circular dated 18.2.2016 issued by the competent authority of the State Government. Thus, no error is committed by the respondent authority while rejecting the request of the petitioner. It is, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed.

7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it is revealed that in all the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner on record, name of the petitioner is mentioned as Manishaben whereas in the birth certificate, name of the petitioner is stated as Jaywantiben.

8. The petitioner has specifically averred in paragraph 3.2 of the petitioner that recently the petitioner has applied for permanent residence-ship of Canada and concerned authority is