Created byFuzzy Cloud

High Court of Gujarat

SOLANKI KARSANBHAI MULJIBHAIversusTHE REGISTRAR (BIRTH AND DEATH) , AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Disposal
RULE ISSUED AND PARTLY ALLOWED

Holding

The petition is partly allowed, directing the Registrar to decide the pending application within three months, without ordering a change of parents' names in the birth certificate.

Summary

The petitioner, Solanki Karsanbhai Muljibhai, adopted a child named Jatin with the consent of the child’s biological parents, who are his brothers, and registered the adoption deed in 2022. The adoption was reflected in a government gazette in 2023, and the petitioner sought to have the parents’ names on Jatin’s birth certificate changed accordingly. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, alleging that the Registrar of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had failed to act on his application dated 20‑April‑2026. Both parties agreed that the application remained pending. The High Court, after hearing counsel, partially allowed the petition, directing the Registrar to decide the pending application within three months, but did not order the name change itself. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Registrar of Births and Deaths is duty-bound to amend the parents' names in the birth certificate in accordance with the adoption deed and gazette notification.
  • Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued under Article 226 to compel the Registrar to decide a pending application within a stipulated time.

Legislation cited

Subjects

adoptionbirth certificatemandamusArticle 226Registration of Births and Deaths Actparental name changewrit petition

Judgment

     C/SCA/6672/2026                              JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6672 of 2026


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================

            Approved for Reporting               Yes          No
                                                              ✔
================================================================
                 SOLANKI KARSANBHAI MULJIBHAI
                             Versus
     THE REGISTRAR (BIRTH AND DEATH) , AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL
                         CORPORATION
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MB RANA(2760) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KUSHAL A DESAI(9435) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                             Date : 06/05/2026

                               JUDGMENT


1.      RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. Kushal Desai,
who appears on advance copy being served, waives service of notice
of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent.


2.      With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the
matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.


3.      By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India read with the provisions of the Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) and Rules
framed thereunder, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :


                                 Page 1 of 4
     C/SCA/6672/2026                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026




        “A) Be pleased to admit and allow this Special Civil Application;

        B) Be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
        order or direction and be pleased to direct the respondent authority to
        change the name of the parents as "Solanki Karsanbhai Muljibhai in the
        column of Father and Solanki Meenaben Karsanbhai in the column of
        mother" in the birth certificate of Jatinkumar at Ann:C, by considering the
        application dated 20.4.2026 at Ann:A as well as the adoption deed dated
        22.3.2022 at Ann:B in the interest of justice;

        C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, be
        pleased to direct the respondent authority to decide the application dated
        20.4.2026 Ann: A in the interest of justice.

        D) Be pleased to grant such other and further relief that may be deemed fit
        and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”


4.      It is the case of the petitioner that, since there was no children
born out of the wedlock of the petitioner with his wife, the petitioner
and his wife decided to adopt "Jatin" with the consent of his biological
parents Maheshbhai and Pushpaben being a younger brother and
accordingly, an adoption deed came to be executed between the
petitioner along with his wife Pushpaben and Maheshbhai Muljibhia
Solanki and his wife Pushpa Maheshbhai Solanki on 22.03.2022. That,
the said adoption deed came to be registered with the ofÏce of the
Sub Registrar, Ahmedabad-6 Naroda bearing Registration No.
7095/2022. That, the adoption was took place with the consent of
Biological parents of Jatin as petitioner and biological father of Jatin
are real brothers and accordingly, the petitioner wanted his name to
be shown as a father of Jatin and therefore, on the basis of the said
adoption deed, the same was declared in ofÏcial gazette on
21.09.2023 and the name of Jatin came to be shown in the said
gazette at Sr. No. 33 as Solanki Jatin Karshanbhai under the column of
new name. That therefore, the petitioner approached the concerned
authority of respondent Corporation to change the names of the



                                      Page 2 of 4
     C/SCA/6672/2026                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026




parents in the Birth Certificate of Jatin, however, after numerous
efforts, there was no response received from the respondent
authority.


5.      Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action and inaction on
the part of the respondent authority, present petition is preferred.


6.      Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.


7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
application made by the petitioner before the respondent authority is
pending since long and till date the same has not been decided by the
respondent authority and therefore, leaned counsel for the petitioner
has urged that the present petition be allowed and the respondent
authority be directed to decide the application made by the petitioner
within a stipulated time period.


8.      Learned counsel Mr. Kushal Desai, who appears for the
respondent on advance copy being served, has submitted that the
application is pending since long and therefore, this Court may pass
appropriate orders to decide the same within a stipulated time period.


9.      I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. Considering the
submissions canvassed by both the sides and considering the facts of
the case, the present petition is partly allowed. The Registrar,
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is hereby directed to decide the
application dated 20.04.2026 made by the present petitioner within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this Order,



                                   Page 3 of 4
               C/SCA/6672/2026                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026




       in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
       There shall be no order as to costs.
                  Direct service is permitted.


                                                                          (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

       Dolly




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/05/2026 18:09:50


                                                           Page 4 of 4


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "adoption"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.