RIZVAN AJITBHAI AJMERIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      C/SCA/9277/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9277 of 2024
                                With
            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9281 of 2024

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
         Approved for Reporting              Yes No
                                              -- No
==========================================
                       RIZVAN AJITBHAI AJMERI
                                 Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
I N SAIYED(7725) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS RATNA VORA(2251) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KUSHAL A DESAI(9435) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
ANGESH PANCHAL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 20/03/2026

                             ORAL JUDGMENT


1.       RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2.       With the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the
sides, the petitions are taken up for =nal hearing.

3.       Present petitions are =led by the petitioner under Article 226 of


                                  Page 1 of 9
      C/SCA/9277/2024                            JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Births and
Deaths Registrations Act, 1969 seeking direction to the respondent –
authorities to change the name of father in the column of father in the
birth certi=cates of his minor daughter / son from “Salmanbhai
Shaikh” to “Rizvan Ajmeri” and issue fresh / amended birth
certi=cates.

4.       Short facts of the present petitions are that the petitioner
married with Sakerabanu d/o. Sabirhusen Julaya and out of the said
wedlock, they have three children and elder son was born on
29.09.2016, second daughter was born on 25.01.2018 and younger
daughter was born on 26.12.2023, for which the birth certi=cates
were issued by respondent No.2, however, in the said certi=cates, in
column of father, the name of father of daughter / son of the
petitioner is mentioned as “Salmanbhai Shikh” instead of “Rizvan
Ajmeri”.

4.1      The petitioner had made an application for correction in the of
father in the column of father in the birth certi=cates of his minor
daughter / son from “Salmanbhai Shaikh” to “Rizvan Ajmeri” in the
birth certi=cates on 22.04.2024, but the same came to be rejected by
respondent – authorities.


5.       Heard Ms. Ratna Vora, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.Angesh Panchal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 and Mr.Kushal Desai, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.



6.       Being aggrieved and dissatis=ed with inaction on the part of the



                                  Page 2 of 9
      C/SCA/9277/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




respondents – authority, the present petition is =led.

7.       Learned counsel 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 name of father in the Birth
Certi=cates. 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.Angesh Panchal, 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
confers the power of correction or cancellation of an entry in the


                                  Page 3 of 9
     C/SCA/9277/2024                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




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 satis/ed 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 satis/ed that any such error has been made, make
          the necessary correction.



                                     Page 4 of 9
      C/SCA/9277/2024                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




           (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 o8cer 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 Certi=cate.


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 5 of 9
C/SCA/9277/2024                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




     “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
     A@airs, 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 A@airs, 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
     substance is to be corrected, it covers error of such nature
     which is an error of substance or form. That similar types of


                                Page 6 of 9
C/SCA/9277/2024                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




     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 forti/ed 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 con/ne 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 di8culties 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
     governed as in the case of REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
     (supra) in view of admission of L.P.A. No.1673/2006 by an


                               Page 7 of 9
      C/SCA/9277/2024                              JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




           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 justi=able 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.


14.      In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the



                                  Page 8 of 9
        C/SCA/9277/2024                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




  petition is partly allowed. The impugned order / communication dated
  31.05.2024 is quashed and set aside. The respondent – authority is
  directed to issue fresh birth certi=cates of minor daughter / son after
  correcting the name of father i.e. from “Salmanbhai Shaikh” to
  “Rizvan Ajmeri”. 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 25/03/2026 15:15:29




                                                           Page 9 of 9