The authority must correct erroneous entries in birth records based on credible evidence, and reliance on circulars cannot override statutory provisions.

ORAL ORDER

1.Learned advocate for the petitioner, has tendered a draft amendment. Amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. Same shall be carried out forthwith.

2. By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent to correct the date of birth as 22.04.1982 instead of 22.12.1982 in the birth register, coupled with further direction to the respondent to issue fresh Birth Certificate. By the amendment, the petitioner, also seeks to challenge the communication dated 01.08.2024 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Birth & Death (Central) Office, Surat Municipal Corporation whereby, the request of the petitioner to correct the date of birth, has been rejected.

3. Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 22.04.1982; however, inadvertently, in the Birth Certificate, the same is recorded as 22.12.1982. It is submitted that the petitioner, has taken education from Surat and after her marriage, she has been staying in Canada with her family since last 24 years. It is submitted that except the Birth Certificate, in rest of the public documents, namely, the School Leaving Certificate; the Aadhar Card; the Passport, the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 22.04.1982. It is submitted that when in all the public documents the date of birth is recorded as 22.04.1982, there was no reason available to the authority to refuse the request of the petitioner to change the date of birth in the Birth Certificate.

3.1 Reliance is placed on case of Anil Navinchandra Patel vs. Registrar Births and Deaths passed in Special Civil Application No.607 of 2003 . It is submitted that this Court, has placed reliance on various authorities and considering the legal position, directed the respondent to accept the application and correct the name of the petitioner, as requested. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Mukeshkumar Prahaladbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2020 (2) GLH (UJ) 1. It is submitted that in view of the well-recognized principle, the application, ought to have been accepted and the birth certificate ought to have been issued with necessary correction.

4. Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that there is no error on the part of respondent authority in recording the date of birth, as the Birth Certificate, which has been issued, is as per the information received from the hospital, so also the documents submitted to the Corporation. Hence, the application of the petitioner was not considered and the request of the petitioner accordingly, was refused.

5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is for correction in the Birth Certificate issued by the office of the Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death), Surat Municipal Corporation. According to the petitioner, the date of birth, is incorrectly recorded as 22.12.1982 instead of 22.04.1982. As against this, the stand taken by the respondent is that the details received from the hospital, has been recorded in the Birth Certificate. The petitioner has placed voluminous documents on record, namely, the School Leaving Certificate issued by the I.C. Gandhi High School, Surat wherein, the date of birth, is recorded as 22.04.1982; the Passport wherein, the date of birth is recorded as 22.04.1982; so also the Aadhar Card, the date of birth is recorded as 22.04.1982. The father of the petitioner has filed an affidavit, declaring that the date of birth of the petitioner is 22.04.1982; however, inadvertently, the date of birth recorded in the Birth Certificate is 22.12.1982. With all these documents, necessary correction is requested by the petiti