MAHESHBHAI MEGHAJIBHAI UKANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr.P.P.Banaji, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1. Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.

(2.) THE petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21.03.2014, passed by respondent No.2, Registrar/TalaticumMantri, Govindpura Gram Panchayat, Taluka Dhari, District Amreli, whereby the application of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner's son, Nikunj, has been rejected.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that his son, Nikunj, was born on 28.04.1992, at village Govindpur, Taluka Dhari, District Amreli. The fact of the birth of Nikunj was registered with respondent No.2 on 21.11.1992 by the petitioner. However, by inadvertence, the date of birth of Nikunj was wrongly registered as 28.10.1992, instead of 28.04.1992. The Birth Certificate of Nikunj has, therefore, been issued with the wrong date of birth on it. The correct date of birth of Nikunj is reflected on the School Leaving Certificate, PAN Card and Driving Licence, annexed as AnnexuresD, E and F, to the petition. All these documents were submitted to respondent No.2 along with the application dated 21.03.2014 for correction of the date of birth. Along with the application, an affidavit, duly sworn by the petitioner and his wife Chandrikaben Maheshbhai Ukani, was also submitted to respondent No.2. The son of the petitioner wants to apply for a VISA, as he is desirous of going abroad. However, respondent No.2 has rejected the application of the petitioner by passing the impugned order dated 21.03.2014, on the ground that there is no clear provision in Rule 11(1) of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004 ("the Rules", for short), that empowers him to make the necessary corrections. Another reason for rejection is that it cannot be believed that the date of birth of the petitioner's son has wrongly been entered in the relevant record by inadvertence. On the above grounds, respondent No.2 has refused to make the necessary corrections. Aggrieved by the abovementioned order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.