DILIPBHAI JIVRAJBHAI MENDPARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Draft amendment is granted.

(2.) Considering the short issue involved in the petition, rule is made returnable forthwith.

(3.) The petition is filed seeking a direction against the respondent under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Act of 18 of 1969) (for short "the Act") to correct the name of the petitioner's daughter from Purvi to Krupa, as, according to the petitioner, the said name was mistakenly entered into the birth register at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner has made a representation in this regard produced at Annexure "C" which has been decided against the petitioner citing Circular dated 18.2.2016 purportedly prohibiting the respondent from correcting the name of a person in the birth register. On close perusal of the circular it transpires that once upon a time a clarification was made that the change in the name applied for by a person under the Act should not be permitted except where substantially the name remains the same. Such clarification came to be withdrawn subsequently and it appears that because of withdrawal of such clarification the respondent authority finds itself bereft of the power to make correction of the errors even in cases where the name is not sought to be changed, but only correction of name is sought. This, in the opinion of this Court, is a total misreading of the circular. The circular does not preclude correction of errors in the name; it once upon a time prohibited the change of name. This is not a case for change in name but a case where the parents of the baby girl Krupa have filed an affidavit stating that the correct name of their baby girl is Krupa and not Purvi as registered in the birth register. A reference to the decision in Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [2008(1) GLH 556] may be made at this stage where this Court has, after elaborately pointed out the correct legal position inter alia for dealing with applications under Section 15 of the Act. The respondent is thus under an obligation to adhere to the decision in Nitaben (supra) and address the issue again on that basis.