Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Mukeshkumar Prahaladbhai Patel – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat & Others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 5727 of 2018
Decided On : 13-03-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Rule returnable Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent - Controversy involved in present case which lies in a very narrow compass with consent of advocates for respective parties matter is taken up for final hearing - Petitioner has prayed that order quashed and set aside and further prayed to direct respondent to correct date of birth of petitioner in certificate and register of birth - Petitioner was born at Village respondent erroneously recorded date of birth of petitioner as in Register of Birth to be maintained provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths - Petitioner made an application for change of date of birth however respondent rejected application - Held, petitioner has been able to establish that date of birth - Even in impugned order authority has relied upon policy decision of Government which prescribes for school leaving certificate matriculation certificate secondary school certificate and extracts of local authorities - Considering record which is brought on record of this petition as observed in passport issued to petitioner date of birth is recorded as - Similarly in PAN card Andhra card election card driving license date of birth material is to be considered by authority while exercising power prima facie opinion of this Court material which is placed on record is sufficient enough as evidence to prove that date of birth - Keeping in mind ratio laid down by this Court in case of State of Gujarat & Ors reported in respondent is statutory authority to consider request - In light of aforesaid therefore decision petition is hereby quashed and set aside and respondent is hereby directed to consider application of petitioner - keeping in mind ratio laid down by this Court in case and also taking into consideration certificates and other documents which are attached with record of this petition - Petitioner shall furnish certified/true copies of said documents before respondent shall take a fresh decision on said application within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of this order as necessary documents by petitioner - Petition is disposed of accordingly - Petition allowed (Para 4)
Facts of the Case:
Petitioner was born at Akhaj Village on 28.04.1976. However, the respondent no.2 Talati-cum-Mantri erroneously recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 28.08.1976 instead of 28.04.1976 in the Register of Birth to be maintained under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act-1969.
Finding of the Court:
Court petitioner has been able to establish that date of birth - Even in impugned order authority has relied upon policy decision of Government which prescribes for school leaving certificate matriculation certificate secondary school certificate and extracts of local authorities - Considering record which is brought on record of this petition as observed in passport issued to petitioner date of birth is recorded as - Similarly in PAN card Andhra card election card driving license date of birth material is to be considered by authority while exercising power prima facie opinion of this Court material which is placed on record is sufficient enough as evidence to prove that date of birth - Keeping in mind ratio laid down by this Court in case of State of Gujarat & Ors reported in respondent is statutory authority to consider request - In light of aforesaid therefore decision petition is hereby quashed and set aside and respondent is hereby directed to consider application of petitioner - keeping in mind ratio laid down by this Court in case and also taking into consideration certificates and other documents which are attached with record of this petition - Petitioner shall furnish certified/true copies of said documents before respondent shall take a fresh decision on said application within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of this order as necessary documents by petitioner - Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no. 1 State and Ms. Nayana Panchal, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2.
2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case which lies in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 16.01.2017, passed by the Talati-cum-Mantri, Mundrada Gram Panchayat, Taluka and District: Mehsana be quashed and set aside and further prayed to direct the respondent no.2 to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the certificate and register of birth.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was born at Akhaj Village on 28.04.1976. However, the respondent no.2 Talati-cum-Mantri erroneously recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 28.08.1976 instead of 28.04.1976 in the Register of Birth to be maintained under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act-1969 (for short “the Act-1969”).
5. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application dated 17.08.2015 for change of date of birth, however, the respondent no.2 rejected such application. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Special Civil Application No. 18522 of 2015. The co-ordinate bench of this Court (Coram: N. V. Anjaria, J.) vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2016, allowed the said petition by directing the respondent no.2 authority to consider the case of the petitioner as per application dated 17.08.2015 as expeditiously as possible and within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The order dated 28.01.2016 reads thus:
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon request and consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the petition could be taken up for final consideration.
1.1 RULE, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jyoti Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1, whereas learned advocate Ms. Nayana V. Panchal waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 who is the competent authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
2. What is prayed by the petitioner in this petition is a direction to respondent No.2 authority to issue fresh certificate of birth after making necessary correction in the certificate regarding date of birth.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the birth certificate issued at the relevant time, erroneous date of birth was recorded by inadvertence. It is the say of the petitioner that he was born on 28.04.1976 at Akhaj Village, but the date of birth was erroneously recorded in the birth certificate as 28.08.1976. It appears that the petitioner made application dated 17.08.2015 to respondent No.2 authority praying for correction in his date of birth. Along with the application, the petitioner annexed certain documents in support of his case. It appears that the application of the petitioner is not responded, much less decided by the competent authority.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. P. P. Majmudar pointed out that along with the application itself, the petitioner produced copies of certifications and documents from the government and semi-government authorities such as copy of school leaving certificate, copy of Permanent Account Number card issued by Income Tax Department, copy of Passport issued by the passport authority etc. which mention the correct date of birth of the petitioner, that is, 28.04.1976.
4.1 Learned advocate for respofndent No.2 submitted that the authority responded to the petitioner by asking certain documents in support of his case which the authority wanted to consider. No such communication however is on record of the petition. It is also the say of learne
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
