PATEL KOKILABEN KALIDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, with the following prayers: "A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit the Special Civil Application. B) Be please to issue a writ of mandamus, or in the nature of, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction upon respondent Authority by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 20.08.2014, annexed at Annexure -D and by further directing respondent authority to correct the Birth Certificate of the petitioner by showing his birth date as 01.06.1968. C) Pending admission, disposal and final hearing of the above numbered writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant ad interim relief by directing the respondent to correct the Birth Certificate of the petitioner by showing his birth date as 01.06.1968. (D) Such other(s) and further relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to be granted in the interest of justice;"

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, she was born on 01.06.1968, at Moje Bhaupura, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar. The factum of the birth of the petitioner was got recorded in the Register of Births and Deaths maintained by respondent No.2, TalaticumMantri, Bhaupura Village Panchayat, by a relative. By an inadvertent bonafide mistake, the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly recorded as 15.01.1968, instead of 01.06.1968. However, in all the other certificates of the petitioner, such as the School Leaving Certificate and PAN Card, the correct date of birth of the petitioner, that is, 01.06.1968, has been recorded. The petitioner made an application for the correction of her date of birth to respondent No.2, on 20.08.2014. Respondent No.2 rejected the said application by passing the impugned order dated 20.08.2014, on the ground that he is not competent to effect the necessary correction. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

(3.) MR .J.S.Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order issued 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 an erroneous date in the Birth Certificate. 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.