VAHORA MAHAMMAD SADIKBHAI YUSUFBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.8.2018 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lunawada in Birth- Death/Appeal No.15 of 2018.

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Thakkar for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Antani for the respondent nos.1,2 and 4.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the birth certificate is issued by the competent authority in favour of the son of the petitioner wherein the date of birth is recorded as 6.6.1986 instead of 5.6.1986. It is submitted that the correct date of birth of the son of the petitioner is 5.6.1986. When the petitioner came to know about the said mistake, the petitioner immediately approached the competent authority for correction of date of birth. However, the said request was not entertained and therefore the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.3536 of 2018 before this Court. It is submitted that this Court, has by an order dated 1.5.2018, disposed off the said petition with a direction to the respondent no.4 to consider the application of the petitioner and after considering the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It is submitted that respondent no.4, thereafter heard the appeal filed by the petitioner and once again rejected the appeal by an order dated 30.8.2018 without considering the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and simply relying upon the circular dated 18.2.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar (Births and Deaths), State of Gujarat. Learned advocate further submitted that though specific direction is given by this Court, the respondent no.4 has not appreciated the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar has placed reliance upon the order dated 13.3.2018 passed by this Court (Coram: A.J.Shastri, J) in Special Civil Application No.2966 of 2018. He has also referred the provisions of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 ('Act of 1969' for short) and Rules framed thereunder. He, therefore, urged that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the respondent no.4 for deciding the matter afresh.