Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
V.M. Pancholi, J.
Kamil Vajihuddin Siddiqui - Appellants
Vs.
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Spe. Civ. App. No. 16357 of 2020
Decided On : 10-03-2021
Name Correction - Birth Certificate - Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, Rule 11(1) - The court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the respondent No. 3 for deciding the application afresh. The respondent No. 3 was directed to make necessary inquiry as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and Rules framed thereunder and to consider the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to correct the name of his son in the birth certificate, which was initially recorded as 'Jibril' but was later corrected to 'Arsil' and published in the Gujarat Government Gazette. The respondent No. 3 rejected the request based on a circular without making the necessary inquiry as required by the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the respondent No. 3 for deciding the application afresh. The respondent No. 3 was directed to make necessary inquiry as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and Rules framed thereunder and to consider the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent No. 3 had erred in rejecting the petitioner's request for name correction in the birth certificate without conducting the necessary inquiry as required by the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent No. 3 had failed to make the necessary inquiry as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder before rejecting the petitioner's request based on a circular. The court emphasized that circulars cannot override the statutory provisions and that the competent authority cannot simply rely upon a circular and reject the request without making necessary inquiry.
Final Decision: The impugned communication/order dated 30.07.2020 passed by the respondent No. 3 was quashed and set aside. The matter was remitted back to the respondent No. 3 for deciding the application afresh, with the direction to make necessary inquiry as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and Rules framed thereunder and to consider the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. The petitioner was also required to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 if the request was considered by the respondent No. 3.
ORDER :
V.M. Pancholi, J.
1. By way of this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs,
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondent authorities, more particularly respondent No. 3 to correct the name entered into the Birth Certificate as well as in Birth Register, in the interest of justice;.
(C) xxx xxx xxx."
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. A.R. Kadri for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. R.B. Raval appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned advocate, Mrs. Kalpana Raval appearing for the respondent No. 3.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to the averments made in the memo of petition and, thereafter, submitted that in the birth certificate, name of the son of the petitioner is recorded as "Jibril", however after taking advice and suggestion of spiritual Guru, the name of the son of the petitioner is changed from "Jibril" to "Arsil". It is submitted that the name of the son of the petitioner is corrected and published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 18.01.2018, copy of said gazette is placed on record at Page No. 25 of the compilation. It is further submitted that in Aadhar Card as well as in the school, where the son of the petitioner is staying, his correct name is recorded as "Arsil". Learned advocate for the petitioner, thereafter, submitted that the petitioner has made request to the respondent No. 3 for correction of the name of his son, however by impugned communication dated 30.07.2020, the request of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 by placing reliance upon the Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the concerned authority. It is submitted that before passing impugned order, the respondent No. 3 has not made any inquiry as contemplated under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1969) and the Rules framed thereunder. He also submitted that the respondent has also not considered the documentary evidence supplied by the petitioner.
4. At this stage, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in case of Rajeshbhai Shambhubhai Vora v. State of Gujarat, delivered in Special Civil Application No. 13148/2009 dated 12.01.2020. Learned advocate has also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in, 2019 (3) GLR 1866 : AIR 2019 Guj 56). It is submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. He, therefore, urged that appropriate direction he issued to the respondent No. 3.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mrs. Kalpana Raval appearing for the respondent No. 3 has opposed this petition and, thereafter, contended that there was no fault on the part of the respondent No. 3 while recording the name of the son of the petitioner as "Jibril" in the birth certificate and, hence, the request of the petitioner has been rejected by impugned order by placing reliance upon the Circular dated 18.02.2016. Thus, it is contended that when there was no mistake on the part of the respondent No. 3, this Court may not entertain the present petition.
6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it has emerged that the name of son of the petitioner is recorded as "Jibril", however thereafter immediately, it was corrected and correct name is published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 18.01.2018 and even in the Aadhar Card also, the name o
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
