The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent authority has the power to make changes in the birth certificate based on the documents produced by the petitioner, as provided under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004.

ORDER :

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:

"15. (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.06.2023, annexed at Ann. A, passed by respondent no. 2 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to correct the Date of Birth of petitioner's daughter - Radhika from "23.09.1998" to "23.08.1998" in Birth Certificate and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide amended Birth Certificate.

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Heard Mr. Hardik Muchhala, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Ramesh Chauhan, the the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 and Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, the learned AGP appearing for respondent No.1.

3. The petitioner herein applied for correction in date of birth in the birth certificate of petitioner's daughter Radhika's from "23.09.1998" to 23.08.1998" by first application dated 3.5.2023, however, there were certain anomalies in the said application and in view thereof the petitioner filed further application dated 5.6.2023, which came to be declined by the respondent authority on 21.6.2023, duly produced at Annexure "A".

4. Mr. Muchhala, the learned advocate submitted that the petitioner approached the competent authority by first application dated 3.5.2023, duly produced at page-22, along with birth certificate of daughter of the petitioner, affidavit by persons known to the petitioner's daughter, School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner's daughter Radhika, PAN Card and Aadhar Card of the daughter of the petitioner, however, there were certain anomalies in the said application dated 3.5.2023. The respondent No.2, by order dated 24.5.2023, stated that, on 23.8.1998, there is no entry with regard to the birth of daughter of the petitioner Radhika and, therefore, declined to consider the said application dated 3.5.2023.

5.1 The petitioner filed further application on 5.6.2023, pointing out the mistake committed in application dated 3.5.2023, and again requested the respondent No.2 authority to make necessary correction in date of birth in the birth certificate of petitioner's daughter Radhika's from "23.09.1998" to 23.08.1998", however, the said application came to be rejected by the respondent authority on the ground that in affidavit duly produced along with application dated 3.5.2023, the date of registration is mentioned as 23.8.1998, however, in the birth register, at Serial No.3, the name of daughter of the petitioner Radhika Dineshbhai Bhesania is not registered. The said further application dated 5.6.2023 came to be declined on the ground that by virtue of Circular dated 2.12.2021, which is duly produced at page-21, the power to correct the date of birth as per Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 stands cancelled and hence no change can be made in the birth certificate under the said Section 15 of the Act. It was submitted that the competent authority erred in holding that the powers under Section 15 are cancelled and on that ground alone, the present petition is required to be allowed.

6. Mr. Ramesh Chauhan, the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 authority submitted that such change, as prayed for, by the petitioner after a period of 25 years, is rightly not accepted or considered by the competent authority. It was submitted that the petitioner could have addressed the application and prayed for the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner since she is a major. Mr. Chauhan, the learned advocate for the respondent authority submitted that no error said to have been attributed to the respondent authority.

7. Mr. Muchhala, the l