Quashed

Patel Nitaben Alias Nainaben Wife of Harishbhai and D/O Bhagubhai Dayalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC9 Jan 2019SCA/19427/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution quashed an order rejecting a request to correct a name in a Birth Certificate. The Court directed the authority to reconsider the application afresh after considering documentary evidence under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.09.2017 is set aside and respondent directed to consider petitioner's application afresh within six weeks.

Patel Nitaben Alias Nainaben Wife of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/19427/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19427 of 2018

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

PATEL NITABEN ALIAS NAINABEN WIFE OF HARISHBHAI AND D/O BHAGUBHAI DAYALBHAI PATEL

¶6

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR KM ANTANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER (4) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶10

for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3,4

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI Date : 09/01/2019 ORAL ORDER

¶13

1.This petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶14

Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has
prayed that the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by
respondent No.4 be quashed and set aside and thereby
respondent No.4 be directed to correct the name of
the petitioner from ‘Nainaben’ to ‘Nitaben’ in her
Birth Certificate.

¶15

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.M.N. Devnani and

¶16

learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M. Antani
for respondent No.1. Though notice is served to
respondent Nos.2 to 4, nobody appears on their
behalf. However, looking to the issue involved in the

¶17

Page 1 of 9

¶18

C/SCA/19427/2018 ORDER

¶19

present petition, the same is taken up for final
disposal.

¶20

3.It is submitted by the learned advocate for the
petitioner that respondent No.4 issued the Birth
Certificate in favour of the petitioner, in which,
the name of the petitioner is wrongly recorded as
Nainaben. It is submitted that the correct name of
the petitioner is Nitaben. Learned advocate for the
petitioner has referred the documentary evidence
produced along with the present petition and
contended that in other records, the name of the
petitioner is correctly recorded as Nitaben. It is
submitted that the petitioner submitted an
application on 01.09.2017 to respondent No.4 for
correction of her name in the Birth Certificate.
However, respondent No.4 by the impugned order dated
12.09.2017 rejected the said request relying upon the
Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief
Registrar (Births and Deaths) and Commissioner
(Health), State of Gujarat.

¶21

3.1Learned advocate for the petitioner, thereafter,

¶22

Page 2 of 9

¶23

C/SCA/19427/2018 ORDER

¶24

submitted that the said Circular is considered by
this Court in number of matters and this Court has
observed that the Circular dated 18.02.2016 is

¶25

guiding the concerned authority at the time of
exercising powers under Section 15 of the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1969” for
short) and Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths
Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of
2004” for short). However, the said Circular cannot
override the statutory provisions. Learned advocate
for the petitioner referred the provisions contained
in Section 15 of the Act of 1969 and Rule 11 of the
Rules of 2004. Learned advocate has also placed
reliance upon the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by
this Court in Special Civil Application No.12223 of
2018.

¶26

3.2It is submitted by the learned advocate for the
petitioner that the petitioner initially approached
this Court by filing Special Civil Application
No.20057 of 2017 challenging the order dated
12.09.2017 passed by the Talati-cum-Mantri –

¶27

Page 3 of 9

¶28

C/SCA/19427/2018 ORDER

¶29

respondent No.4 herein. It is submitted that the
learned Single Judge of this Court has not

¶30

entertained the said petition by observing that it is
not clear whether the Talati-cum-Mantri would be the
competent authority to make correction in the Birth
Certificate or School Leaving Certificate or not. It
is further observed that the petition also involved
disputed question of fact and, therefore, the learned
Single Judge did not entertain the said petition. It
is submitted that against the said order passed by
this Court, the petitioner filed Letters Patent
Appeal No.565 of 2018. It is submitted that the
Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said
appeal by an order dated 28.09.2018. However, liberty
was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh
petition by impleading necessary party respondents
and by placing material to show that powers are
delegated to Talati-cum-Mantri for correction of
entries under the provisions of the Act of 1969.

¶31

3.3Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that
in the present petition, Talati-cum-Mantri is joined
as party respondent. He has also drawn attention of

¶32

Page 4 of 9

¶33

C/SCA/19427/2018 ORDER

¶34

this Court to the document produced at Page-72 i.e.
the Collector Manual. In the said document, it is
stated that the Talati-cum-Mantri of the Gram
Panchayat is having power under Section 4 of the Act
of 1969. He has also drawn attention to the document
produced at Page-79 i.e. District Census Handbook
wherein, it is stated that the Talati-cum-Mantri is

¶35

also Registrar of Births and Deaths for the
respective villages. He has also drawn attention of
this Court on the decision rendered by this Court in
the case of Gitaben Keshavlal Patel wd/o. Amrutbhai

¶36

K. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in
2009(3) GLH(UJ-1) 1. It is submitted that in the said
judgment, this Court has held that the Talati-cum-
Mantri is empowered to correct the entry in the Birth
Register. He, therefore, requested that the impugned
order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to
respondent No.4 deciding the issue afresh after
considering the documentary evidence produced by the
petitioner.

¶37

3.4On the other hand, learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr.K.M. Antani submitted that respondent No.4

¶38

Page 5 of 9

¶39

C/SCA/19427/2018 ORDER

¶40

has not committed any error while rejecting the
request of the petitioner relying upon the Circular
dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar (Birth
and Death) and Commissioner, Health, State of Gujarat
and, therefore, this Court may not entertain this
petition.

¶41

4.Having heard learned advocates appearing for the
parties and having gone through the material produced
on record, it transpires that though the petition
filed by the petitioner being Special Civil
Application No.20057 of 2017 was dismissed by the
learned Single Judge, by order dated 13.11.2017, the
Division Bench of this Court has granted liberty to
the petitioner to file a fresh petition by impleading
necessary party respondents and placing material to
show that the powers are delegated to the Talati-cum-
Mantri for correction of entry in the Birth Register
under the provisions of the Act of 1969. Because of
the said liberty granted by the Division Bench of
this Court, the petitioner has preferred this
petition.

¶42

Page 6 of 9

¶43

C/SCA/19427/2018 ORDER

¶44

5.During the course of hearing, learned advocate
for the petitioner has pointed out the decision
rendered by this Court in the case of Gitaben
Keshavlal Patel wd/o. Amrutbhai K. Patel Vs. State
of Gujarat & Ors. (supra), wherein this Court has
observed that the Talati-cum-Mantri is empowered to
correct the entry in the Birth Certificate and can
exercise powers under the provisions of the Act of
1969. The petitioner has also produced material on
record to point out that the Talati-cum-Mantri is
empowered to correct the entry while exercising
powers under the provisions of the Act of 1969.

¶45

6.From the material, it is revealed that

¶46

respondent No.4 has rejected the request of the
petitioner by relying upon the Circular dated
18.02.2016 issued by the Chief Registrar (Birth and
Death) and Commissioner, Health, State of Gujarat,
without considering the documentary evidence produced
by the petitioner. In the present proceedings, the
petitioner has produced on record the documentary
evidence which suggest that the name of the
petitioner is recorded in the said documents as

¶47

Page 7 of 9

¶48

C/SCA/19427/2018 ORDER

¶49

Nitaben. It is further required to be noted that this
Court has considered Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued
by the Chief Registrar (Birth and Death) and
Commissioner, Health, State of Gujarat and thereby
observed that the said Circular is guiding the
authority at the time of exercising powers under the
provisions of the Act of 1969 and the Rules framed
thereunder. This Court has further observed that the
said Circular cannot override the statutory
provisions. Section 15 of the Act of 1969 empowers
the respondent authority to correct the entry i.e.
birth date and the name in the Birth
Certificate/Register, if the authority is satisfied
that there was some mistake committed at the time of

¶50

entering the details in the Register or the
Certificate. Thus, the concerned respondent authority
is required to consider the documentary evidence.

¶51

However, in the present case, the respondent
authority has not at all considered the said
documentary evidence produced by the petitioner.

¶52

7.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the
impugned order dated 12.09.2017 is quashed and set

¶53

Page 8 of 9

¶54

C/SCA/19427/2018 ORDER

¶55

aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to consider the
application of the petitioner afresh and take
appropriate decision in accordance with law. At the
time of taking such decision, respondent No.4 shall
consider the documentary evidence produced by the
petitioner and, thereafter, shall exercise the powers
conferred under the provisions of Section 15 of the

¶56

Act of 1969 and Rules framed thereunder, in
accordance with law. Such exercise shall be carried
out, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.

¶57

8. It is clarified that this Court has not examined

¶58

the merits of the case.

¶59

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶60

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶61

piyush

¶62

Page 9 of 9

Patel Nitaben Alias Nainaben Wife of Harishbhai and D/O Bhagubhai Dayalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patel Nitaben Alias Nainaben Wife of Harishbhai and D/O Bhagubhai Dayalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R N Builders through Partner Ruknuddin Gulam Rasul Shaikh Vs Collector

Punitaben Surendrakumar Gandhi Vs Collector

R N Builders through Partner Ruknuddin Gulam Rasul Shaikh Vs Collector

Sunderlal Mangilal Jajoriya Vs Rekhaben Kundanlal Jajoriya

Piyush Bhojak Associate (Administrator) of Pradip Travels Vs Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Mehulbhai Ballubhai Naik Vs State of Gujarat