PURANMASI Vs. STATE OF U. P. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is claiming correction of his date of birth on the basis of a horoscope.

(2.) THERE is no provision under law so as to raise a conclusive foregone presumption in favour of the petitioner in respect of the date of birth as indicated in the horoscope. For this the petitioner will have to lead evidence in a suit to be filed before the court of competent civil jurisdiction. The petitioner is educationally qualified and was working as a Collection Amin. He has passed his matriculation in1969 where his date of birth recorded is 31.1.50.The date of birth as reflected in the horoscope is 31.12.52.

(3.) THIS writ petition therefore cannot be entertained.