N.V Anjaria, J.:— By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against respondent No. 2 to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the Birth Register. It is prayed to correct name of mother of the petitioner, and further prayed to rectify the name of petitioner's grandfather as well.

2. According to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 20.07.1989, however at the time of his birth, the birth date was incorrectly recorded in the certificate of birth as 20.10.1989 Petitioner has further stated that name of his mother is recorded as “Babuben”, while the true name is “Baluben”. Name of petitioner's grandfather is “Chharanbhai” and the same ought to have been recorded in the birth certificate, but what is recorded is “Chhaganbhai”. The petitioner made an application dated 24.06.2015 before respondent No. 2, which is the competent authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, requesting for carrying out the aforesaid three corrections in the record of birth. Respondent No. 2 by communication dated 28.07.2015 refused to entertain the request.

3. Learned advocate Mr. D.K Chaudhary assailed the decision of respondent No. 2 reflected in the aforesaid communication. He submitted that it was because of bona fide mistake that the wrong birth date was got recorded in the certificate of birth at the time when the petitioner was born. It was submitted that similarly the names of the mother and the grandfather which were inserted, were also inaccurately done. It was submitted that the school leaving certificate issued to the petitioner by Nutan Vidya Vihar, Higher Secondary School, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedebad, where the petitioner studied, showed the correct date of birth to be 20.07.1989 It was further submitted that in the other government and semi-government documents and certifications such as Permanent Account Number card issued by the Income-tax Department mentioned the correct date.

3.1 Learned advocate next submitted that names of his mother and grandfather were correctly recorded in the passport issued on 06.04.2006 by the competent passport authority. On the basis of all the above, it was submitted by learned advocate that the competent authority-respondent No. 2 could not have disregarded the plea of the petitioner and could not have overlooked the aforesaid documents. It was submitted that the mistake which took place in recording the date of birth and the names in the birth certificate was either because of wrong information imparted to the authority at the relevant time of birth by some relative or it was an error committed by the authority who entered the details in the register.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mrs. Kalpana Raval vehemently opposed the petition. She not only relied on the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, but also submitted that the petitioner did not supply the necessary documents to enable the authority to arrive at a proper decision in respect of the application for correction made by the petitioner. It was submitted by her that Section 15 of the Act would have no application in the facts of the case but Section 13 would apply. She submitted that as far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, it was a case of delayed information given to the Registrar regarding the birth having taken place. On the basis of the plea of the petitioner that his birth was in the month of July, but date recorded was that of in the month of October after three months of the birth, since it came to be recorded in breach of Section 13, it was submitted that the same cannot be considered for corrections now.

5. It appears that the aforesaid application dated 24.06.2015 of the petitioner was not replied at all till the petitioner filed the present petition. Along with the affidavit-in-reply, respondent No. 2 produced a communication dated 28.07.2015 of the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation whereby the request of the petitioner came to be refused. The said decision and the communication was after the notice came to be issued by this Court. The substance of the grievance of the petitioner is about non-acceptance of his request for the above corrections in the record of birth.

5.1 The same ground which was raised as a contention by learned advocate for the authority in course of hearing of the petition was mentioned in the aforesaid decision/communication dated 28.07.2015 namely that there ought to have been a permission by the competent authority because the new date of birth prayed for by the petitioner and old date of birth recorded have in between them three months' gap. Since there was such gap and the permission of the competent authority was not obtained, in the hands of the competent authority, the same was not liable to be corrected now. The another reason given has been that there was no clerical error committed at the time of recording of the birth date. It may be pertinently noted that the petitioner in his application prayed for correction of date of birth, correction in the name of his mother as well as correction in the name of his grandfather. In the aforementioned communication/decision dated 28.07.2015, the competent authority has only mentioned about the ground for not accepting the request for correction of date of birth. As far as the other corrections requested are concerned, the authority has not expressly denied the same.

6. The contention is not well-conceived that since there was a gap of three months in the original birth date recorded and one which is sought to be corrected, the powers with the authority are not available. It is also not correct to say that Section 13 would apply. For any subsequent corrections in the date of birth initially recorded in the Register of Births and Deaths and in the Birth Certificate, the Act specifically provides for the procedure under Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004.

6.1 Section 15 of the Births and Deaths Act, 1969 provides for correction or cancellation of entry in the Register of Births and Deaths. Section 15 of the Act reads as under,

“15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the registrar of births and deaths - If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.”

6.2 Rule 11 is relevant and is reproduced hereinbelow,

“11. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of berths and deaths: (1) If it is reported to the registrar that a clerical or formal error has been made in the register, or if such error is otherwise noticed by him and if the register is in his possession, the Registrar shall enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, he shall correct the error (by correcting or cancelling the entry) as provided in Sec. 15 of the Act and shall send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the District Registrar of Births and Deaths.”

6.3 A combined reading of the aforesaid Section and the Rule makes it clear that the competent authority is vested with power to correct or cancel an entry in the Register of Birth and Death maintained by him. The authority may correct or cancel the entry if it is proved to the satisfaction that such correction is required. Rule 11 contemplates the procedure to be followed in that regard.

6.4 This Court in Nitaben N. Patel v. State of Gujarat [2008 (1) GLR 884] has held that when an authority is empowered to exercise powers under Section 15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the State Rules, 2004 and if the authority refuses to exercise its powers, a writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing appropriate directions to the authority. In Nitaben N. Patel (supra), following was laid down by the Court,

“(1) Section 15 of the Act of 1969 read with Rule 11 of the State Rules, 2004 along with Chapter 9, Clause 9.6 and 9.7 of the Handbook of Registrar General, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India and Clause 5.8 of Chapter 5 of guidelines contained in vernacular Gujarati adequately conferred power upon the authority to correct/cancel erroneous entries and provide for complete mechanism for types of errors to be corrected.

(2) Section 15 of the Act of 1969 empowers Registrar of Birth and Death to correct any erroneous entry in form or substance or any entry which has been fraudulently or improperly made. Rule 11 of Rules, 2004 and particularly Sub-Rule (1) provide for any entry, any error which may be clerical or formal and Sub-Rule 4 of the above Rule 11 mention about any entry which may be erroneous in substance and Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 11 refer to any entry which is fraudulently or improper is to be corrected by the Registrar and an elaborate procedure is provided Iwhich prescribe method and manner in which such entry to be corrected or cancelled and report to be made to the higher authority, which may rule out in misuse of power by registering authorities.

(3) The kind and types of directions to be issued to the authority depend on facts and circumstances of the each case and nature of denial of legal right to the aggrieved persons by the authority.

6.5 In another judgment dated 26.12.2011 by this court in Jagdish Liladhar Vadera v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 15139 of 2011, the court relying on Nitaben N. Patel (supra), directed the authority to exercise powers under Rule 15 of the Act and decide the application of the petitioner regarding correction in date of birth.

6.6 In view of above position of law, it cannot be said that when the petitioner has made an application for correction of entry in the date of birth etc. which was recorded at the relevant time, merely because the date of birth sought to be corrected is later in point of time by three months than the originally recorded, the authority cannot exercise powers under Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 11 as above. It has to consider whether the entry in the birth date is correct or can be cancelled and denied after making inquiry and after going through relevant material which may be produced by the petitioner or which the competent authority may call for satisfying itself. It is entirely not germane to say that there was a gap of three months between old birth date and new birth date so as to refuse to exercise power on that count.

6.7 In 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 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.

7. In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of by directing respondent No. 2 authority to consider the case of the petitioner notwithstanding 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.

8. It is observed that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 would consider the case of the petitioner by duly examining the same on merits and in accordance with law.

9. The exercise directed as above shall be completed by respondent No. 2 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from the receipt of the present order. In order that the authority is enabled to consider and decide afresh as directed above, communication dated 28.07.2015 stands set aside.

10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

11. The petitioner is allowed to serve the authority and produce this order before it.