Sachin Natwarlal Patel Vs Registrar of Births and Deaths Cum Talati Cum Mantri

C/SCA/9564/2018 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9564 of 2018

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

¶5

SACHIN NATWARLAL PATEL

¶6

Versus

¶7

REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS CUM TALATI CUM MANTRI

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

ABHIMANYU RATHOD(7347) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶13

Date : 07/01/2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1.In this petition, the petitioner has prayed
that the order dated 09.05.2018 passed by the
respondent be quashed and set aside.

¶16

2.Heard learned advocate Mr. Rathod for the
petitioner. Though served, nobody appears on
behalf of respondent.

¶17

3.It is submitted by learned advocate for the
petitioner that in the birth certificate issued
by the respondent authority, name of the
petitioner is recorded as Satishkumar instead of
Sachin and name of mother of the petitioner is
recorded as Bhikhiben instead of Bhagwatiben. It
is contended that petitioner, therefore,
requested the respondent authority by filing an
application dated 07.05.2018 to correct the name
of the petitioner as well as name of the mother

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

C/SCA/9564/2018 ORDER

¶20

of the petitioner in the birth certificate. Along
with the said application, petitioner has also
annexed relevant documentary evidence in which
the correct names of the petitioner as well as
his mother are reflected. However, the respondent
has rejected the application of the petitioner by
the impugned order dated 09.05.2018 without
considering the said documentary evidence and
only relying upon the circular dated 18.02.2016
issued by the Chief Registrar of Births and
Deaths and Commissioner of Health, State of
Gujarat. He, therefore, urged that impugned order
be set aside.

¶21

4.This Court has perused the material placed on
record and considered the submissions canvassed
by learned advocate for the petitioner. It is
revealed from the record that the request of the
petitioner to change his name and name of his
mother in the birth certificate issued by the
respondent is rejected by the respondent without
considering the documentary evidence produced by
the petitioner. While rejecting the request, the
respondent has placed reliance upon the circular
dated 18.02.2016 and not even considered the
provisions of Section 15 of the Registration of
Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the Act’ for short) and Gujarat
Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for
short) framed thereunder. So far as the circular

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

C/SCA/9564/2018 ORDER

¶24

dated 18.02.2016 is concerned, this Court has
considered the said circular in number of matters
and this Court has observed that the said
circular is having guiding factor at the time of
considering the request of the concerned
applicant for change of date of birth or the name
in the birth certificate. However, the said
circular cannot override the statutory provision.

¶25

5.This Court has passed an order dated
13.03.2018 in Special Civil Application No.2966
of 2018 wherein the circular dated 18.02.2016 is
considered by this Court and thereafter directed
the authority to decide the application of the
concerned petitioner for change of date of birth
after considering various documentary evidence.

¶26

6.This Court, in Special Civil Application
No.11281 of 2015, has passed an order on
26.02.2016, wherein this Court, after considering
the decision rendered by this Court in the case
of Nitaben N. Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported
in 2008 (1) GLR 884 and after considering the
provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act and
Rule 11 of the Rules, has observed in para 6.7
and 7 as under:

¶27

“6.7In view of above, the competent
authority respondent No.2 herein has to
exercise his powers so as to consider
the merits of the request of the
petitioner for correction of date of
birth as well as corrections in the

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

C/SCA/9564/2018 ORDER

¶30

name of mother and the name of
grandfather. The respondent No.2 has
got powers for correction in relation
to the entries and the name also and
such correction or cancellation also
comes within the purview of the powers
under Section 15 of the Act. In the
facts and circumstances of the case,
necessary directions are required to be
issued to respondent No.2 authority to
consider and decide the case of the
petitioner again by giving due regard
to the material which may be produced
by the petitioner.

¶31

7. In the circumstances, this petition
is disposed of by directing respondent
No.2 authority to consider the case of
thepetitionernotwithstanding
communication dated 28.07.2015 above.
It stands set aside in view of
directions given above. Respondent No.2
authority is free, and the petitioner
is at liberty, to produce such and
further documents and evidence which
may be considered in respect of the
claim of the petitioner.”

¶32

7.Keeping in view the aforesaid decision, if
the facts of the present case are examined, it is
revealed that the respondent has rejected the
application of the petitioner only relying upon
circular dated 18.02.2016 and not at all
considered the documentary evidence. In that view
of the matter, impugned order dated 09.05.2018 is
quashed and set aside. Respondent is directed to
decide the application of the petitioner afresh
after considering the documentary evidence
produced by him and keeping in view the aforesaid

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

C/SCA/9564/2018 ORDER

¶35

decisions rendered by this Court as well as the
provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act and
Rule 11 of the Rules, in accordance with law,
within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of this order. It is clarified that this
Court has not examined the merits of the case.

¶36

8.With the aforesaid observations and
directions, petition is disposed of. Direct
service is permitted.

¶37

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶38

Jani

¶39

Page 5 of 5

Sachin Natwarlal Patel v. Registrar of Births and Deaths Cum Talati Cum Mantri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Natwarlal Patel v. Registrar of Births and Deaths Cum Talati Cum Mantri

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

Thakkar Vasudev Kaniyalal Vs Manoj Shashidhar

Shamalbhai Karshanbhai Jua Vs Senior Regional Manager - Retail

Jani Balashankar Pranshankar Vs State of Gujarat

Maganbhai Lakhmanbhai Ladumor Vs State of Gujarat

Vahora Mahammad Sadikbhai Yusufbhai Vs State of Gujarat

Akhalak Ahmed Nizamali Bukhari Vs Gujarat State Waqf Board