SHEELA PHILIP (SHEELA VIJAY) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Hemang Parikh, Ld. AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the communication/order dated 15/11/2006 issued by respondent no. 2 rejecting the application of the petitioner for change of her name from Ms. Sheela Philip to Sheela Vijay. It is her say that her maiden name was Ms. Sheela Philip. She got married to Mr. Vijaykumar Stephen on 21/1/2001. She, therefore, made application to respondent no. 2 for change of her name and to publish it in the Government Gazette. That request was, however, rejected for want of surname. That was in August 2001. The petitioner preferred second application on 13/3/2006 along with an affidavit seeking change in her name from Sheela Philip to Sheela Vijay. She did not receive any reply. She was, therefore, constrained to file application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 on 23/8/2006 with a view to solicit the necessary information and also to know the criteria for issuing the notification of change in name in the Government Gazette. In response to the same, the petitioner received reply on 31/8/2006 wherein resolution of the Finance Department dated 5/6/1972 was referred to. It also appears that while keeping in view the said resolution, respondent no. 2 rejected her application by order dated 15/11/2006 for publication of her name in the Government Gazette on the ground that her request to publish her new short name in place of old short name cannot be granted. The petitioner served a legal notice on respondent no. 2 on 7/2/2007. However, the same has not been replied to. In view of the same, the present petition is filed.

(3.) I have heard Ms. E Shailaja, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Hemang Parikh, Ld. AGP for the respondents. According to Ms. Sailaja, the ground on which the request has been turned down is totally irrelevant and the respondent no. 2 is not justified in rejecting the application for change of name. According to her, since the petitioner got married to Vijaykumar Stephen, her maiden name Sheela Philip is required to be changed to Sheela Vijay and the shortness of the name cannot be a ground for rejecting the application. Mr. Parikh is not in a position to oppose this contention.