JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. RULE. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Though served, none appears for the respondent No. 2.

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of respondent No. 2 for not correcting name and date of birth in the Birth Certificate of the petitioner as Alkaben Ramanbhai Patel” and “07.11.1971” respectively. Due to some clerical error, name and date of birth of the petitioner is wrongly shown as “Baby” and “16.10.1971” respectively in the Birth Certificate issued by the respondent authority.

4. The brief facts of the case are as under:

4.1 The present petitioner was born at Mauje Lali, District Kheda. At the time of registration, name and date of birth of the petitioner is wrongly registered as “Baby” and “16.10.1971 in the birth records respectively maintained by the respondent no. 2. As a result, the competent authority, at the relevant time, had issued a certificate of birth showing the name and date of birth of the petitioner as “Baby” and “16.10.1971” respectively.

4.2. The petitioner had approached the respondent No. 2 for correction in the name and date of birth in her Birth Certificate by way of filing an application dated 20.12.2019, however, the respondent No. 2 rejected the same vide order dated 24.01.2020 for the reason that he has no power to make any correction. It is the case of the petitioner that her application is rejected by placing reliance on the circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat stating that the correction in the name and date of birth is not permissible as per the guidelines issued in the said circular.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities, while placing reliance on the circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the State authority, which has been subsequently withdrawn by the State authority vide order dated 02.12.2021, has rejected the application of the petitioner. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may be set aside. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel W/o Khodabhai Joitaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 2019 (3) GLR 1866.

6. Learned AGP has submitted that the impugned order is passed by the respondent No. 2 denying the correction in the date of birth for the reason that he does not have power in correcting so. He has further submitted that the State authority has withdrawn the said circular dated 18.02.2016.

7. While passing the impugned order the respondent authority referred to the Circular dated 18.02.2016, and is confined to the reason mentioned therein with regard to his lack of power in making correction. At this stage, I may with profit refer to the decisions of this Court. In case of Sukumar Mehta vs. District Registrar, Births and Deaths, 1993 (1) GLR 93. This Court, after examining the provisions of section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 has held thus:

“In my opinion, the Act is silent about the contingency for subsequent correction of entry already made in Birth Register by correcting the name of the child at the instance of the parents, his is the case of unmindful legislative omission. This is classic case of casus omissi, i.e. circumstances concerning which an Act is silent. The question is how to deal with such contingencies? Should the Court leave the litigant in sheer helpless condition asking him to wait till the legislature curds the defect by providing for the omission? Can the Court escape the responsibility of considering these unforseen contingencies? However, I cannot ignore the modern tendency in Courts to take the view that if a case is entirely un-provided for by a Statute, either directly or indirectly, then it must remain nobody's child - a luckless orphan of the law (In Re: Leicester Permanent Building Society, 1942 Ch. 340). Same was the view of D