Gujarat High Court
Dharmik Jayprakash Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 23 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11536/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11536 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DHARMIK JAYPRAKASH PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANKIT B PANDYA(5906) 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 : 23/04/2026
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.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective
parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.
3. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19,
21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions
of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 seeking following
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11536/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
reliefs:
“A. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit and allow the present
petition;
B. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
Respondent No. 2 to correct the entry in the birth register and issue
a fresh corrected Birth Certificate showing the Petitioner’s date of
birth as 14/07/1981.
C. Pending admission, hearing, and final disposal of this petition, this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to
consider the Petitioner’s application in accordance with law and
documentary evidence, without insisting upon hospital records.
D. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant any other and further
relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
4. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
correct date of birth of the Petitioner is 14/07/1981, but due to an
inadvertent error by Soni Nursing Home, Himmatnagar, the same was
incorrectly recorded as 15/07/1981 by Himmatnagar Nagarpalika at
the time of registration. That, the Petitioner’s correct date of birth,
i.e., 14/07/1981, is consistently recorded in all other official and
government-issued documents such as: school leaving certificate,
Passport, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Driving License etc. That, the
Petitioner is employed as an engineer in a private company in Kuwait,
and requires the corrected birth certificate for employment and visa-
related formalities. Upon obtaining a birth certificate from the
respondent authority, the Petitioner discovered the discrepancy in the
recorded date of birth. That, the Petitioner submitted a written
application dated 14/11/2024 to the office of Respondent No. 2
(Himmatnagar Nagarpalika) along with supporting documents
requesting correction of the date of birth which came to be rejected
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11536/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
vide communication dated 14.12.2024. That, the Petitioner was orally
informed by the Respondent No. 2 that the correction could only be
made if Soni Nursing Home, the hospital that initially provided birth
details, issued a correction certificate. Being aggrieved by the inaction
of the respondent no.2, 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. Ankit Pandya has submitted that the
impugned communication passed by the respondent no.2 is 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 section 15 of the Registration of
Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with Rule 11 of the Gujarat
Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004, empowers the
Registrar to correct clerical or factual errors in the register based on
reliable documentary evidences. He has submitted that the
respondent no. 2 has not considered the ratio laid down by this Court
in Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel Vs. (The) State of Gujarat and
Others reported in 2008(1) GLH 556 wherein this Court has held
that the authority is empowered to correct the entries in the birth
register by exercising powers envisaged under section 15 read with
Rule 11. It is, therefore, submitted that the prayers made in the
petition be granted.
7. Mr. Deepak Sanchela, learned counsel has opposed the present
petition and submitted that there is no any infirmity or any illegality in
the impugned communication passed by the respondent no.2 and
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11536/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present
petition and the present petition is required to be dismissed.
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 communication issued by the concerned
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 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:
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11536/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
“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 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.)[(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 factsPage 5 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/11536/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
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 as
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 abovePage 6 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/11536/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11536/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
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.]
[(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
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11536/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11536/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
on an issue that has already been decided. Respondent No.1 is,
therefore, directed accordingly.
11. Insofar as the impugned communication 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. 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 with law and decide the
application of the petitioner.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the aforesaid
decisions of this Court, the petition is allowed. The respondent no.2 is
directed to make necessary correction in the birth date of the
petitioner in the birth register and issue a fresh corrected birth
certificate to the petitioner showing the petitioner’s date of birth as
14.07.1981 within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this
order. Rule is made absolute.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
ANUSRI
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 20:32:50 IST 2026
