Tejas Parsottambhai Patel vs Registrar, Birth And Death Department

A.Y. Kogje, J

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to make necessary correction in the Birth Certificate of the petitioners daughter - Gunjan for mentioning the correct name of the daughter, i.e. from 'Vaghela Gunjan Dineshbhai' to 'Gunjan Tejas Patel' and also mentioning the correct name of the mother, i.e. from 'Nimisha' to 'Nirmala'.

It is the case of the petitioners that earlier the petitioner No.2 (the mother) had married one - Dineshbhai Vaghela and out of the wedlock, a girl child 'Gunjan' was born and pursuant to her birth, the entry was made under the Registration of Birth and Death Act. After the marriage, the petitioner No.2 was addressed as 'Nimisha' at her matrimonial home and therefore, in the Birth Certificate of the child, the name of the mother is addressed as 'Nimisha'.

However, the husband of the petitioner No.2 expired and thereafter, the petitioner No.2 remarried with the petitioner No.1 and the minor child is with the petitioners and is being taken care of with affection and all responsibilities. An adoption deed was executed between the petitioners, which was registered and the daughter was legally adopted.

It is submitted that the mother has changed her name in Aadhar Card as Nirmala Tejas Patel. Even in the Government Gazette, the name of 'Gunjan' is changed from 'Vaghela Gunjan Dineshbhai' to 'Gunjan Tejas Patel'. It is submitted that as the petitioners desired to make the above changes in the Birth Certificate, they approached the office of the respondent and filled up the form. However, the form was returned by the respondent stating that unless there is an order of the Court, the name will not be changed.

To substantiate his submissions, learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shabbir Saifuddin Badshah & Others v. Surat Municipal Corporation and Others reported in 2018 LawSuit (Guj) 170.

In identical facts situation this Court in the judgment in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2008 (1) GLR 884 and an unreported judgment in the case of Sachin Natwarlal Patel v. Registrar of Births and Deaths cum Talati cum Mantri in Special Civil Application No.9564/2018 dated 07.01.2019 has issued directions. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the Registering Authority is within its power under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Death Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Birth and Death Act, 2004, to correct the errors as prayed for.

Since the Court proposes to dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions, no Notice is issued at this stage. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court and the respondent is directed to accept the Application Form (at Page 40 of the petition) and take a decision on the same, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Direct Service is permitted.