- (1.)RULE . Mr.P.P.Banaji, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 has been served with the notice of this Court, but has not chosen to put in an appearance. As respondent No.2 does not appear to be interested in the proceedings before this Court, there is no necessity of issuing notice of Rule to him. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.
(2.)THIS petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, with the following prayers:
"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit the Special Civil Application.

(B) Be please to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction upon respondent Authority by quashing and setting aside the impugned certificate/order dated 01.09.2014 at AnnexureC, and further be please to direct respondent authority to correct the Birth certificate of the petitioner by showing his birth date as 19.05.1981.

(C) Pending admission, disposal and final hearing of the above numbered writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant ad interim relief by directing the respondent to correct the Birth Certificate of the petitioner by showing his birth date as 19.05.1981.

(D) Such other(s) and further relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to be granted in the interest of justice;"

(3.)ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was born at village Veda, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar, on 19.05.1981. It is his case that due to an inadvertent mistake, his date of birth has been wrongly recorded as 19.08.1981 in the record. The other documents of the petitioner, such as the School Leaving Certificate and Driving Licence, have the correct date of birth inscribed upon them. The petitioner made an application to respondent No.2 for correction of the date of birth. By the impugned order dated 01.09.2014, respondent No.2, TalaticumMantri, has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that he has no power to make corrections in the record pertaining to the date of birth of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.
Mr.J.S.Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned certificate/order issued 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 an erroneous date 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.