Gujarat High Court
Renukaben Indravadan Gandhi vs The State Of Gujarat on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16413/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16413 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RENUKABEN INDRAVADAN GANDHI
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 12/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1
and Mr. Deepak Sanchela, learned counsel waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.2. With the consent
of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the present
petition is taken up for final hearing today.
2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14
and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of
the Gujarat Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 2004 seeking
following reliefs:
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 23:21:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16413/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
“[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this
petition;
[B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may please to issue appropriate writ or
order quashing and setting aside impugned order dated
06/10/2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 and further be pleased
to direct Respondent No. 2 to correct its Birth Register[C] by showing the petitioner’s correct birth date “06/03/1961”
and thereby further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to
issue the fresh Birth Certificate;
[D] Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this
petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant ad interim
relief by directing the respondent to correct its Birth Register by
showing the petitioner’s correct birth date and other required
correct missing details and further be pleased to direct the
respondent no. 2 to issue the fresh Birth Certificate;
[E] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass ex-parte ad
interim relief in terms of Para (C);
[F] Such other and further relief as may be deemed just and
necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case
may kindly be granted.”
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
this petition is filed by the petitioner for correction of her birth
date mentioned in the Extract of the Birth Register. That, the
respondent no. 2 is denying the correction in the birth register
maintained by respondent no. 2 under the Gujarat Registration
of Birth and Death Act along with the Rules framed thereunder.
That, the petitioner had made representation to respondent no. 2
that she was born in early morning hours of 06.03.1961, shortly
after midnight but unfortunately, the entry in the Extract of the
Birth Register incorrectly reflects the date as 05.03.1961. That,
in other documents including School Leaving Certificate, Aadhar
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 23:21:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16413/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
Card and the Passport, etc the birth date of the petitioner was
recorded as 06.03.1961. That, the petitioner had filed an
application dated 17.09.2025 before respondent no.2, under
section 15 of Registration of Birth and Death Act whereby the
application was rejected by the authority vide
communication/order dated 06.10.2025 and refused to carry out
correction as mentioned above in the Register because of want
of jurisdiction.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
communication/order dated 06.10.2025 passed by Sub Registrar,
Navsari Mahanagarpalika, the petitioner has preferred the
present petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
Perused the materials available on record.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Sindhi has submitted that the
impugned communication/order passed by the Mahanagarpalika
is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts
and material on record and the provisions of the Act and
therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. He has
submitted that the authority has erred in holding that it has no
jurisdiction and that, in view of section 15 read with Rule 11, the
respondent has not considered the ratio laid down by this Court
in Nitaben N Patel reported in 2008(1) GLH 556 wherein this
Court has held that the authority is empowered to correct the
Birth Certificate by exercising powers envisaged under section
15 read with Rule 11. Over and above the grounds agitated in
the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Sindhi has urged that
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 23:21:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16413/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
the impugned communication/order passed by the authority is
required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is
required to be allowed.
7. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Sanchela, appearing
for the respondent no.2, has opposed the present petition and
submitted that there is no any infirmity or any illegality in the
impugned communication/order passed by the authority and
therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the
present petition. He has submitted that the impugned
communication/order passed by the authority is in consonance
with the settled principles of law and is passed after following
due procedure and therefore, the same is required to be
confirmed and the present petition is required to be dismissed
and no interference is required to be called for while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I
have also considered the impugned order passed by the
authority. It appears from the record that the entry made in the
register is prima facie found to be erroneous. In view of the
decision of this Court in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel
Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2008 (1) GLR 884, more
particularly paragraphs no. 9, 26 and 27 and the Court has
further reiterated in the case of Krupaben Rashikbhai Patel
Vs. State of Gujarat & 1 reported in 2015 LawSuit(Guj) 5
where this Court had an occasion to decide the issue in relation
to the powers and scope under section 15 of the Registration of
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 23:21:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16413/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
Births and Deaths Act, 1969 that the correction can be made
only if entry is erroneous in form or substance or if fraudulently
or improperly made and after considering the rules and
provisions of Act, this Court had allowed the petition.
9. In the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel (supra), this Court
has held and observed in paragraphs no. 9, 26 and 27 as under:
9. Therefore, Sec. 15 of the Act of 1969 read with Rule 11 of Guj.
Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004 (for short Rules of
2004) which has come into force w.e.f. 22.1.2004 based on the
model rules published in the Handbook of Civil Registration by the
Registrar General of India the Ministry of Home Affairs and guidelines
contained in the booklet published by the Chief Registrar, Births and
Deaths, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar in September, 2005 govern
the field.
9.1. So far as statutory provisions and rules are concerned Sec. 15 of
the Rules 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.”
Rule 11 of the Guj. Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004
reads as under:
“11. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births
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 isPage 5 of 11
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 23:21:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/16413/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
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.)[(2) In the case referred to in sub-rule (1) if the register is not
in the possession, the Registrar, he/she shall make a report to
the District Registrar of Births and Deaths and call for the
relevant register and after inquiring into the matter, if he is
satisfied that any such error has been made, make the
necessary correction.][(3) Any such correction as mentioned in sub-rule (2) shall be
countersigned by the District Registrar of Births and Deaths
when the register is received from the Registrar.][(4) If any person asserts that any entry in the register of
births and deaths is erroneous in Substance, the Registrar
may correct the entry in the manner prescribed under Sec. 15
of the Act upon production by that person a declaration
setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case
made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts
of the case.][(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and
sub-rule (4), the Registrar shall make report of any correction
of the kind referred to therein giving necessary details to the
District Registrar of Births and Deaths.][(6) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any
entry in the register of births and deaths has been
fraudulently or improperly, he shall make a report giving
necessary details to the officer authorized by the Chief
Registrar by general or special order in this behalf under Sec.
25 of the Act and on hearing from him take necessary action
in the matter.)[(7) In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled
under this rule, intimation thereof should be sent to the
permanent address of the person who has given information
under Sec. 8 or Sec. 9 of the Act.”
26. Thus in the nutshell, what emerges from the factual and legal
submissions made and conclusions arrived in earlier paragraph is asPage 6 of 11
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 23:21:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/16413/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
under:
[(A) In view of the provisions of Sec. 28 of the Repealed Act of 1886
and provisions contained in Secs. 29 and 31 of the Act of 1969, by
which erstwhile provision of correction/cancellation of entries in the
register of birth and death, which is not in derogation, remained alive
in Sec. 15 of the new Act and, therefore, the authority is empowered
to correct erroneous entries in the register of birth and death, even
in a case where registration was made prior to 1.4.1970 ie the date
on which new Act of 1969 came into force and correction of error is
sought for later on.][(B) Sec. 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.][(C) Sec. 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 which 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.
Thus, clause 9.6 and 9.7 of Chapter 9 of the Handbook of Registrar
General, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India provide for
corrections and cancellations of entries and contain clerical or formal
error, error in substance or fraudulent or improper entry and once
any error in substance is to be corrected, it covers error of such
nature which is an error of substance or form. That similar types of
errors are mentioned in Clause 5.8 of Chapter 5 of vernacular
guidelines published by the State Authorities under the Act.]
[(D) The above proposition of law stand fortified by the decisions of
this Court in two Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 195/1999 and 231/2001
in the case of Mulla Faizal & Faxilabanu Suleman Ibrahim and
Registrar, Birth and Death Rajkot Municipal Corporation (supra),
there is no doubt that the expression “erroneous in form or
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 23:21:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16413/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
substance” in Sec. 15 of Act of 1969 is an expression of vide
amplitude and does not confine to simple typing errors or clerical
mistakes and no guidelines or circulars can take away powers of the
Register of making correction in entries which are erroneous in form
or substance in register as envisaged under Sec. 15 of Act of 1969
and Rule 11 (1) to (7) of the State Rules, 2004.]
[(E) When the authority empowered to exercise power under Sec. 15
of the Act and Rule 11 of the State Rules, 2004, refuse to do so, writ
petition is maintainable under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuing appropriate directions to the authority]
[(F) 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.]
[(G) That even Sec. 27 of the Act of 1969 is pertaining to delegation
of powers and Sec. 32 empowers to concerned Government to
remove the difficulties and, therefore, the appropriate Government
or any authority upon whom the powers are delegated can act in
accordance with scheme of the Act and appropriate directions can be
given accordingly.]
[(H) So far as matters arising out of the Regulation 12(A) of the Guj,
Secondary Education Regulation, 1974 is concerned, law as on date
is governed as in the case of Soorat Jessomal Khanchandani (supra)
and Thakore Nilesh Shishirbhai (supra).)
[(I) So far us the matters arising out of the Passport Act, 1967 and
Rules, 2000, is concerned, law as on date is governed as in the case
of REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER (supra) in view of admission of LPA
No.1673/2006 by an order dated 30.7.2007 by which the judgment of
the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2716/2006 is
stayed.
27. In view of the above and also considering the prayers made in
each of the Special Civil Applications following is the order and
direction issued to the authority concerned.
[(i) In Special Civil Application No.23471/2007 the petitioner has
prayed to correct the name entered into the Birth and Death
Register, which the Chief Officer, Municipality of Bardoli has refused
to correct the name entered into the birth and death register on the
ground that clause 7-1 of the guideline of Birth and Death
Registration Act, 1969 does not empower the authority, the order
impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and order
accordingly.]
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 23:21:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16413/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
[(ii) In Special Civil Application Nos 23616/2007 and 21788/2007, the
petitioners have prayed to correct the date of birth of the petitioners
and to issue the fresh birth certificate to the petitioners;
[(iii) In Special Civil Application No.29164 the petitioner has prayed
to correct the name and date of birth of the son of the petitioner in
the birth record;
[(iv) In Special Civil Application No. 19896/200/ the petitioner has
prayed to correct the name of the petitioner’s son;
[(v) In Special Civil Application No.6352/2007 the prayer is with
regard to correcting date of birth of the petitioner and also name of
the father of the petitioner and;
[(vi) In Special Civil Application No. 28336/2007, the prayer of the
petitioner is with regard to quash and set aside the order dated
16.4.2007 passed by respondent No. 1 on application dated
12.4.2007 and direct the respondents to effect the correction as
sought in the application;
[(vii) That so far as Special Civil Application No.28336/2007 is
concerned, the deponent of affidavit-in-reply has relied on Clause 7.1
and Clause 7.4 of the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of
Health, Medical Services and Medical Education, Govt of Gul and has
opposed grant of any relief. The above reliance on the guidelines is
misplaced, inasmuch as, Sec. 15 of the Act of 1969, Rule 11 of Rules,
2004 and even the above clause 5.8 clearly empower the authority
to correct/cancel any erroneous entry in the form and substance. As
laid down in the LPA No. 231/2001 in the case Registrar, Birth and
Death Rajkot Municipal Corporation (supra) no guidelines dehors the
statutory scheme can be framed by the authority divesting or
depriving such authority of the statutory duties prescribed under the
Act. Thus, a case is made out by the petitioner to quash and set
aside the impugned order and issuance of further direction for
correction as sought for in the application submitted by the
petitioner.]
27.1. In view of what is discussed and held in paragraphs 14 to 18
and particularly in paragraph 26, the impugned order in Special Civil
Applications where prayer is made to quash and set aside is hereby
quashed and set aside in each of the petitions and respondents are
directed to exercise power vested with them.
27.2. In light of the discussions and observations made in the
judgment, respondents are directed to exercise power vested into
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 23:21:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16413/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
under Sec. 15 of the Act of 1969 and Rule 11 of 2004 pursuant to the
application preferred by the petitioners for correction as prayed for
by each of the applicant and as per application submitted before the
concerned authority preferably within six weeks from the date of
receipt of the order.
10. The principles of law enunciated in the above quoted
judgment would squarely apply in the present case. It is
disheartening to note that even though this Court has, on various
occasions, rendered a plethora of judgments setting aside the
orders whereby the Competent Authority has refused to exercise
the jurisdiction vested in him by the statute, the same kind of
stereotyped orders are being passed time and again, refusing to
exercise the power vested by law. It would, therefore, be
appropriate to direct the State Government to take appropriate
steps, so that the judgments rendered by this Court in this
regard are brought to the notice of the competent authorities
under the Act so as to put an end to continuous multifarious
litigation on an issue that has already been decided. Respondent
No.1 is, therefore, directed accordingly.
11. Insofar as the impugned communication/order in the
present petition is concerned, it is clear from a perusal thereof
that respondent No.2 has simply refused to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in him by the statute, by conveniently putting
the onus on the Court. When the statute has conferred power
upon the said respondent, it is incumbent upon him to exercise it
judiciously and in accordance with law. There is no justifiable
reason why respondent No.2 has refused to act in accordance
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 23:21:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16413/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
with law and decide the application of the petitioner. Hence, the
impugned communication/order deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the aforesaid
decisions of this Court, the petition is allowed. The impugned
communication/order dated 06.10.2025 passed by respondent –
Sub Registrar, Navsari Mahanagarpalika is hereby quashed and
set aside. The respondent- Navsari Mahanagarpalika is directed
to make necessary change/correction in the birth date of the
petitioner in the record and issue a fresh birth certificate to the
petitioner after correction in the birth date within 4 weeks from
the date of receipt of writ of this order. Rule is made absolute.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
ANUSRI
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 23:21:35 IST 2026