SCA/979/2006 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 979 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ============================================================== 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 ? ============================================================== PURVIBEN RAJENBHAI KAVANI - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THR'CHIEF REGISTRAR & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================== =================== Appearance : MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR. PRACHCHHAK, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, MR PK PAREKH for Respondent(s) : 2, ====================================================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 06/02/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.Rule. Mr. Prachchhak, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Shri P.K.Parekh, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2.With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. SCA/979/2006 2/4 JUDGMENT 3.By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent No.2 – authority to make necessary correction of the entry No.167 dated 10.1.2002 by correcting the name of the petitioner's child “Hiral” to “Rutu” and also to quash and set aside the decision dated 9.12.2005 passed by the respondent No.2. 4.It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the name of the daughter of the petitioner is “Rutu” but at her parental house, her pet name was “Hiral” and therefore, her name was mentioned as “Hiral” in the register as mentioned in the Birth and Death Register and the birth certificate came to be issued by mentioning her name as “Hiral.” That the husband of the petitioner and the father of the minor kids have settled at U.S.A. and the petitioner is also having passport. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that when the petitioner approached the respondent No.2 for correcting the name of “Hiral” as “Rutu” in the birth certificate, the same came to be refused by communication dated 9.12.2005 on the ground that the said authority has no jurisdiction and SCA/979/2006 3/4 JUDGMENT therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application. 5.Shri M.K.Purohit, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon two decision of this Court reported in 2000(2) GLH Page-1 and reported in 2001(3) GLR Page-2484 in support of his submission that in fact, the respondent has got jurisdiction to make necessary correction on producing the necessary documents and satisfying itself. Shri Purohit, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also replied upon one unreported judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court referred in Special Civil Application No.1056 of 2003 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the said Special Civil Application and directed the respondents of that Special Civil Application to effect the change of the petitioner's name as Falguni instead of Tina in birth register and to issue corrected birth certificate to the petitioner forthwith. 6.In above view of the matter, the impugned communication dated 9.12.2005 is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondents, more particularly, the respondent SCA/979/2006 4/4 JUDGMENT No.2 is required to be directed to reconsider his decision in the light of the decision of this Court and on producing sufficient material, the respondent No.2 is directed to make necessary correction in the name of “Hiral” as “Rutu” in the register as well as to issue a fresh certificate. 7.For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 9.12.2005 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent No.2 is directed to effect the change of the petitioner's daughter's name as “Rutu” instead of “Hiral” in the birth register and to issue corrected birth certificate to the petitioner on reconsidering its decision and on furnishing necessary documents before the respondent No.2 and on fulfilling other requirements within a period of 4 weeks from today. 8.Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent, however, there will be no order as to costs. Direct Service is permitted. (M.R.SHAH, J.) kdc.