SCA/30913/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30913 of 2007 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 ? ========================================================= PATEL JALPABEN KAUSHIKKUMAR - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MANISH R RAVAL for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS DS PANDIT, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date : 25/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Ms.D.S.Pandit, learned AGP for the respondents waives service of Rule. 2. Heard Mr. Manish Raval, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. D.S.Pandit, learned AGP for SCA/30913/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. It is very sorry state of affairs that the petitioner was relegated to the authority for getting fresh birth certificate mentioning the name of the petitioner as “Kumari Jalpaben” though the same reflected in the birth register. Earlier, competent authority has already issued one birth certificate mentioning the name of the petitioner as “Jalpaben”. The said birth certificate is at Anexure:C to the petition. There cannot be any reference of name of community in the column no.1 kept for writing name of theh person born. True it is that in the birth register, name of the present petitioner is referred to as “Jalpa”, but when the authority has already issued certificate in the name of Jalpaben, as female child, she is addressed as “ben” and male child is addressed as “bhai”. Necessary certificate could have been issued and therefore, such certificate should now be issued. It is contended by the petitioner that such fresh certificate is required as the same is insisted upon by the statutory authorities of the country where the petitioner intends to go and settle. 4. No writ jurisdiction normally should be exercised in such or similar matters, but this is a case where the Court felt that unless specific order is passed, the authority will not SCA/30913/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT issue fresh certificate and would try to put a stamp “duplicate” and that stamp may disturb future settlement of the present petitioner. Ultimately, the idea in the mind of the Court is to see that miscarriage of justice is prevented. 5. Therefore, the petition is allowed. It is hereby ordered that the concerned competent authority shall issue fresh birth certificate to the petitioner mentioning the name “Jalpaben” in column no.1 of the birth certificate. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. [C.K. BUCH,J.] pirzada/-