MADHUBEN DINESHCHANDRA PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Krunal Pandya learned A.G.P., waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself.

(2.) It is the say of the petitioner that she was born on 29th July, 1958 at village Alarsa, Taluka Borsad, District Anand. Intimation with regard to her birth was given to the office of respondent no. 2 for registration of the birth. Accordingly, her birth was registered by respondent no. 4, in the birth register. It is the say of the petitioner that recently she had applied for birth certificate which has been given to her in Village Form No. 14. On receiving the same, the petitioner learnt that name of the petitioner, date of registration and the name of petitioner's mother were not mentioned in the said certificate. She, therefore, made an application and along with it made payment of late fees also. However, respondent no. 2 intimated her by letter dated 21st August, 2007 that in accordance with the provisions of Birth and Death Registration Act, and the Rules framed thereunder, the certificate in Form No. V in accordance with the Form no. 14, is issued. However, in the said form, there is a provision that no new fact should be incorporated. Hence, her request cannot be granted. Against the same, the present petition is filed. Mr. Shastri learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned communication is issued under misconception of law. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court dated 7th August, 2007 in Special Civil Application No. 19179/2007 and has submitted that upon due scrutiny of the material produced before the authority, it has power to incorporate missing facts in the certificate. I have perused the said judgment. While delivering the judgment, this Court has placed reliance on another decision of this Court rendered in the case of Dipika Arvindkumar Pancholi v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2003 (1) GLH pg. 514 and the relevant passage is quoted therein. It is also required to be quoted here, which is as under:-

(3.) In view of the aforesaid, respondent no. 5 is directed to accept the application of the petitioner and upon due scrutiny of the application as well as the material furnished by the petitioner in support of the application and if, everything is found proper, enter the name of the petitioner, date of registration and the name of the petitioner's mother in the register, and issue birth certificate on the basis of the same. The petitioner shall make the application within 30 days from the date of this judgment and thereafter, respondent no. 5 will take appropriate decision thereon and further action within four weeks of the receipt of the application. If the late fee paid by the petitioner is already refunded to her, she will pay it again.