ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. - (1.)RULE . Mr. Udit D. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2TalaticumMantri, Mulsan Gram Panchayat, has been served but has chosen not to appear before this Court. In the circumstances, as the said respondent does not appear to be interested in contesting the petition, notice of Rule need not be issued 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayers:
(A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authority to correct the date of birth as 1/6/1991 in place of 16/11/1991 and be further pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent No.2, dated 23/12/2014 (AnnexureC).

(B) Any other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper may be granted in the interest of justice."

(3.)THE brief facts of the case are that, according to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 01.06.1991. This date is reflected in the School Leaving Certificate, Election Card, Adhar Card and PAN Card of the petitioner. However, in the Birth Certificate issued by respondent No.2, the date of birth is wrongly reflected as 16.11.1991. The petitioner made an application to respondent No.2 for the correction of his date of birth, on 22.12.2014. By the impugned order dated 23.12.2014, respondent No.2 stated that the said correction cannot be carried out, as he is not empowered to do so. Aggrieved by the stand taken by respondent No.2, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring the present petition.
Mr.Yogendra Thakore, 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 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.