SCA/511/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 511 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= VIMALKUMAR PRAVINKUMAR BHRAMBHATT - Petitioner(s) Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RAVINDRA SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 1, MR VINAY PANDYA, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date : 01/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr.Ravindra Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Vinay Pandya, learned AGP for the respondent no.2 and Mr. Dhawal G. Nanavati, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 SCA/511/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT Corporation. 2. Rule. Mr. Vinay Pandya and Mr. Dhawal Nanavati waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. The petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction in exercise of powers vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the respondent to directing them to correct the name of the petitioner from “Balkrishna” to “Vimalkumar” in birth register maintained by the respondent Corporation and the date of birth of the petitioner from “5.9.1977” to “30.8.1977” in the register maintained under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. It appears that there is no big gap in the birth date suggested by the petitioner and in other documents produced along with the petition, date of birth of the petitioner is clearly stated to be 30th August, 1977. Therefore, it is highly probable that from the strength of the information given by the maternity home, birth date of the petitioner was registered. However, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the say of Mr. Ravindra Shah that name “Balkrishna” reflected in the birth register was pet name of the petitioner as the petitioner was born when the family of the petitioner was celebrating the birthday of Lord Krishna which falls in the SCA/511/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT relevant part of the year. “Balkrishna” was, therefore, was pet name of the petitioner and therefore, it is submitted that the observations made by this Court [Coram:K.S. Jhaveri, J.] in the judgment rendered in the case of Arunkumar Mohanbhai Patel Vs. Talati cum Mantri, in Special Civil Application No. 12822 of 2004 dated 8.10.2004 may be taken into consideration. At present, the petitioner is residing abroad and if his name is not corrected, it may result into serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is therefore urged that the name “Balkrishna” reflected in the birth certificate was pet name of the petitioner and the entry can be corrected by the respondent Corporation by placing correct name of the petitioner from “Balkrishna” to “Vimalkumar”. Similarly, the date of birth of the petitioner may also be corrected from 5.9.1977 to 30.8.1977. 4. Of course, there is strong resistance from Mr. Dhawal G. Nanavati, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation. As per Mr. Nanavati, if such practice is followed, then, unwanted elements may try to change name and date of birth which are very essential parts of ones life which determine the identity of a particular individual. However, in absence of any positive allegation against the present petitioner and fact situation as has been explained by the petitioner satisfactorily, the Court is inclined to accept the say of Mr. SCA/511/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT Ravindra Shah, especially in view of the suggestion made by this Court in the above cited decision. 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Entry shall be corrected by the respondent Corporation by placing correct name of the petitioner from “Balkrishna” to “Vimalkumar” in the register of birth. Similarly, the date of birth of the petitioner shall also be corrected from 5.9.1977 to 30.8.1977. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs. 6. After correcting both the entries, fresh birth certificate, if is prayed for, shall be issued to the petitioner on payment of requisite fees. [C.K. BUCH, J.] pirzada/-