BHARVAD VIRIBEN KARANABHAI Vs. EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is surprising that by way of the present writ petition a mother of 91 years of age is seeking a declaration of registering the date of birth of her son, who is 60 years of age. The Executive Magistrate, Dhrangadhra has declared the date of birth of the petitioner as 1/1/1962, whereas the petitioner is seeking to be registered as 17/10/1968.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Pandya appearing for the petitioner has pointed out various documents, which are placed on record. In none of the documents, her son, who is 60 years of age, has applied correction in date of birth. It is also coming out from the record that the date of birth was not registered at the relevant time. Mamlatdar, Dhrangadhra, vide his communication dtd. 29/11/2021 has accordingly informed the Executive Magistrate, Dhrangadhra. The Registrar, Birth and Death, Dhragandhra has specifically contended before the Executive Magistrate that date of birth of the son of the petitioner is not registered in the Birth and Death Register. He has also issued a Certificate dtd. 21/9/2021 under Form No.10 prescribed under the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 and the Gujarat Birth and Death Registration Rules, 2004 that the birth of the son of the petitioner was never registered. Despite the aforesaid statements and certificate by the impugned order dtd. 28/1/2022, the Executive Magistrate has declared the date of birth of the son of the petitioner as 1/1/1962. A direction is sought from this Court to declare the date of birth of the son of the petitioner as 17/10/1968 instead of 1/1/1962. It is pertinent to note that the son of the petitioner, who is 60 years of age, has not filed any proceedings, including the present petition seeking his registration of his birth date as 17/10/1968. Be that as it may, in wake of the aforenoted facts, the writ petition appears to be misconceived. The same stands rejected summarily.