Biren Vaishnav JUDGMENT
Biren Vaishnav, J.
1. Rule. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 3 and Mr. Samir Khan, learned advocate for the respondent no. 4 waive service of notice of Rule.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents no. 3 & 4 to delete the name of the petitioner from all the records of respondent no. 5 maintained in their school and office including School Leaving Certificate of respondent no. 5.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had married one Fatima in the year 1999 and has four children out of the wedlock. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 6 delivered a male child in the year 2002 at Abhishek Hospital, Ankleshwar. The municipality at that point of time issued relevant birth certificate and in the column of name of the father of respondent no. 5 the name of the petitioner was mentioned. Aggrieved by the entry of his name as the father of respondent no. 5 in the birth certificate issued by the municipality, he requested that since he had never married respondent no. 6, his name as father of respondent no. 5 be deleted. Such a request was rejected by the competent authority. The petitioner therefore filed a petition before this court being Special Civil Application No. 3598 of 2014. This Court vide order dated 11.08.2016 allowed the petition and held as under:
"5. I have heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. As stated hereinabove, though served, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have chosen not to appear before this Court.
6. I have considered the provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 as well as Gujarat Births and Deaths Registration Rules, 2004. I have also perused the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2. Considering the provisions of law, I am of the opinion that the respondent No. 2 has committed an error in passing the impugned order. Prima facie, it appears that the respondent No. 2 has not undertaken any enquiry and has passed the impugned order. Hence, the present petition requires consideration.
7. In the result, the present petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 18.2.2014 passed by the Registrar under the Births and Deaths Act and Chief Officer of Ankleshwar Municipality respondent No. 2 herein is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner in the month of November, 2013 afresh, after following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 as well as Gujarat Births and Deaths Registration Rule, 2004, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner. Rule is made absolute to the above extent."
3.1. According to the directions issued by this Court, a fresh certificate of birth qua respondent no. 5 was issued on 16.01.2017 by which the petitioner's name as father was deleted.
3.2. Based on the above, the petitioner made an application to the respondent no. 4 school to correct the school records and delete the name of the petitioner as father of respondent no. 5. It appears that the District Primary Education Officer, Bharuch at the relevant time opined that since respondent no. 5 was in the secondary Section, the same could not be done by the District Primary Education Officer. On a specific request made, the same was rejected on the ground that since respondent no. 5 had left the school, the request for correction of records in the school could not be done.
4. Mr. M.M. Saiyed, learned advocate for the petitioner would assai........