Registering authorities are statutorily empowered to correct erroneous entries in birth records. Where such an authority fails to exercise this jurisdiction, the high court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of these statutory duties.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the sides, the petitions are taken up for final hearing.

3. Present petitions are filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Births and Deaths Registrations Act, 1969 seeking direction to the respondent – authorities to change the name of father in the column of father in the birth certificates of his minor daughter / son from “Salmanbhai Shaikh” to “Rizvan Ajmeri” and issue fresh / amended birth certificates.

4. Short facts of the present petitions are that the petitioner married with Sakerabanu d/o. Sabirhusen Julaya and out of the said wedlock, they have three children and elder son was born on 29.09.2016, second daughter was born on 25.01.2018 and younger daughter was born on 26.12.2023, for which the birth certificates were issued by respondent No.2, however, in the said certificates, in column of father, the name of father of daughter / son of the petitioner is mentioned as “Salmanbhai Shikh” instead of “Rizvan Ajmeri”.

4.1 The petitioner had made an application for correction in the of father in the column of father in the birth certificates of his minor daughter / son from “Salmanbhai Shaikh” to “Rizvan Ajmeri” in the birth certificates on 22.04.2024, but the same came to be rejected by respondent – authorities.

5. Heard Ms. Ratna Vora, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Angesh Panchal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Mr.Kushal Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with inaction on the part of the respondents – authority, the present petition is filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, deserves to be quashed and set aside as the said respondent has not exercised the jurisdiction vested upon him to correct the name of father in the Birth Certificates. As such, the said respondent has failed to discharge his statutory duties and to exercise the power conferred upon him by way of the statute, which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.

6.1 It is submitted that this issue is no longer res integra and this Court has, in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel Vs. (The) State of Gujarat and Others, reported in 2008 (1) GLH 556, held that when the Competent Authority fails to exercise the powers conferred by the statute, a writ of mandamus can certainly be issued to such authority to act in accordance with the provisions of the statute. It is, therefore, submitted that the prayers made in the petition be granted.

7. Mr.Angesh Panchal, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that in view of the principles of law enunciated in the judgment of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. (The) State of Gujarat and Ors. (supra), the Court may pass an appropriate order.

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition and documents annexed thereto, including the impugned order. In this context, it would be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, which confers the power of correction or cancellation of an entry in the Register of Births and Deaths. The said provision reads as below:

“15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths – If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a bi