PARESHBHAI JENTIBHAI MAKAVANAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      C/SCA/2710/2024                            JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2710 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
        Approved for Reporting             Yes       No
                                            ---      No
==========================================
               PARESHBHAI JENTIBHAI MAKAVANA
                              Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN S POPAT(5004) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS 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 Assistant
Government Pleader waives services of notice of rule on behalf of the
respondent – State Authorities.


2.       With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.


3.       Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of


                                  Page 1 of 10
     C/SCA/2710/2024                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Births and
Deaths Registrations Act, 1969 with the following reliefs:-


          (A)   Be pleased to allow this petition.


          (B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of
          mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
          other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and
          setting aside the written communication / impugned order
          dated 15/21.12.2023 by directing the respondent no.2
          authority for to amend and / or correct or mention the name
          of petitioner in the column of ‘father name’ as ‘Pareshbhai
          Jentibhai Makavana’ in place of ‘Pareshkumar Vallabhbhai
          Tilva’ in the birth certificate of Daughter of petitioner and to
          issue fresh birth certificates accordingly, in the interest of
          justice.


          (B1) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of
          mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
          other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and
          setting aside the written communication / impugned order
          dated 15/21.12.2023 by directing the respondent no.2
          authority for to amend and / or correct or mention the name
          of petitioner in the column of ‘mother’s name’ as ‘Nehalben
          Makavana’ in place of ‘Nehalben’ in the birth certificate of
          Daughter of petitioner and to issue fresh birth certificates
          accordingly, in the interest of justice.


          (C) To pass such other and further orders necessary in the
          interest of justice.


4.      Short facts of the present petition are that wife of petitioner
namely Nehalben earlier had married with one Pareshkumar
Vallabhbhai Tilva and out of said wedlock, a daughter namely
Anushree was born on 30.09.2015. That divorce took place between
Nehalben and Pareshkumar Vallabhbhai Tilva on 02.03.2022 and both
were separated through divorce deed by mutual consent and all



                                     Page 2 of 10
      C/SCA/2710/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




responsibilities and custody of minor Anushree had taken by
Nehalben and since then Anushree was residing with the wife of the
present petitioner.


4.1      It is contended that wife of the petitioner and mother of minor
daughter got married with petitioner – Pareshbhai Jentibhai Makavana
and both husband and wife had adopted minor girl Anushree and
Adoption Deed was executed between the parties, which came to be
registered before the ofÏce of Sub Registrar at Manavadar. It is also
contended that the variation in the name of father of minor child of
the petitioner in different documents which creates difÏculties in their
future and, hence, the petitioner has to got correction / replace the
name of petitioner as father of minor girl instead of name of their
biological father into the Birth Certificate by entering the name of
petitioner in column of father’s name as “Pareshbhai Jentibhai
Makavana” in place of “Pareshkumar Vallabhbhai Tilva”.



4.2      It is contended that the petitioner applied before respondent
No.2 for correction of name of petitioner in column of father name in
birth certificate, but the respondent No.2 has refused to accept his
request on the ground that the order of the Competent Court is
required for change or correction in the birth certificate and there is
no any provision except the order of the Court and passed the order
dated 15/21.12.2023.


5.       Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with inaction on the part of the
respondents – authority, the present petition is filed.




                                  Page 3 of 10
      C/SCA/2710/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




6.       Mr.Chintan Popat, learned advocate for the petitioner, has
submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2,
deserves to be quashed and set aside as the said respondent has not
exercised the jurisdiction vested upon him to correct the the name of
father and name of mother in the Birth Certificate. As such, the said
respondent has failed to discharge his statutory duties and to exercise
the power conferred upon him by way of the statute, which has
resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.



6.1      It is submitted that this issue is no longer res integra and this
Court has, in the case of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel Vs. (The)
State of Gujarat and Others, reported in 2008 (1) GLH 556, held
that when the Competent Authority fails to exercise the powers
conferred by the statute, a writ of mandamus can certainly be issued
to such authority to act in accordance with the provisions of the
statute. It is, therefore, submitted that the prayers made in the
petition be granted.



7.       Mr.Nikunj Kanara, learned Assistant Government Pleader,
submits that in view of the principles of law enunciated in the
judgment of Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. (The) State of Gujarat and
Ors. (supra), the Court may pass an appropriate order.



8.       This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties,
perused the averments made in the petition and documents annexed
thereto, including the impugned order. In this context, it would be
pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, which



                                  Page 4 of 10
     C/SCA/2710/2024                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




confers the power of correction or cancellation of an entry in the
Register of Births and Deaths. The said provision reads as below:



          “15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register 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 correct 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.”


9.      In addition thereto, reference may be made to Rule 11 of the
Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004, which lays
down the procedure for correction or cancellation of an entry in the
Register of Births and Deaths. This rule is reproduced as below:


          "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 section 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


                                    Page 5 of 10
      C/SCA/2710/2024                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




           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
           section 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 ofÏcer authorized by the Chief
           Registrar by general or special order in this behalf under
           section 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 section 8 or section 9 of the Act.”


10.      A combined perusal of Section 15 and Rule 11, as reproduced
above, leaves no manner of doubt that respondent No.2 is vested with
the power to make a correction in an entry in the Register of Births
and Deaths and, therefore, in the Birth Certificate.


11.      In Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. (The) State of Gujarat and Ors.
(supra), this Court has exhaustively dealt with the refusal of the
Competent Authority to exercise power in cases similar to the present
one and has held as below:


                                       Page 6 of 10
C/SCA/2710/2024                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




     “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 Section 28 of the
     Repealed Act of 1886 and provisions contained in Sections
     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
     Section 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 i.e. the date on which new Act of
     1969 came into force and correction of error is sought for
     later on.

     (B) Section 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) Section 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


                               Page 7 of 10
C/SCA/2710/2024                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




     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 Section
     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 Section 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 Section 15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the State Rules,
     2004, refuse to do so, writ petition is maintainable under
     Article 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 Section 27 of the Act of 1969 is pertaining
     to delegation of powers and Section 32 empowers to
     concerned Government to remove the difÏculties 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 Gujarat 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 as the matters arising out of the Passport Act,
     1967 and Rules, 2000, is concerned, law as on date is


                               Page 8 of 10
      C/SCA/2710/2024                                JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




           governed as in the case of REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
           (supra) in view of admission of L.P.A. 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.”

                                              (emphasis supplied)


12.      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.


13.      Insofar as the impugned 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 with law and decide the application of the petitioner.
Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.



                                   Page 9 of 10
        C/SCA/2710/2024                                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




 14.        In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the
 petition is partly allowed. The impugned order / communication dated
 15/21.12.2023 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall prefer an
 application before the respondent – authority within a week and the
 respondent – authority is directed to decide an application as early as
 possible preferably within a period of four weeks and in accordance
 with law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service
 is permitted.

                                                                      (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
 V.R. PANCHAL


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/03/2026 16:55:51




                                                         Page 10 of 10