Rudra Alias Rohit Dnyaneshwar Nikam Minor Guardian Of His Father Dnyaneshwar Kachru Nikam v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
2026:BHC-AUG:62-DB {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 903 WRIT PETITION NO. 127 OF 2026 Rudra Alias Rohit Dnyaneshwar Nikam Minor Guardian Of His Father Dnyaneshwar Kachru Nikam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ......
Ms. Pooja H. Tayde, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP for respondent No.1-State Mr. Parth Salunke, Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3 ......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 05 JANUARY, 2026 PER COURT :- 1.
Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. 2.
Present petition has been filed for direction to respondent No.3 to carry out the correction in the name of petitioner. 3.
Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Parth Salunke waives service of notice for respondents No.2 and 3. 4.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a minor coming before this Court through guardian-father. The parents had named the petitioner as 'Rudra', but due to some mistake by the family members, the name of the petitioner came to be registered as
{2} 'Rohit' in the Birth Certificate, but thereafter, in the school record, his name is standing as 'Rudra'. The said name i.e. 'Rudra' is also appeared on Aadhar Card, Army discharge book (since the father was in Army), Transfer Certificate, Bonafide Certificate, Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS), etc. There should not be further problems to the petitioner in the future, and therefore, he is approaching for correction.
5.
Learned advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that as per Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, only that entry can be corrected which is proved to be erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made. Now, the petitioner wants to change in the name, which is beyond the powers of respondent No.3.
6.
We have considered the other documents, and it appears that the documents stand in the name of "Rudra." Even in respect of the personal service record of the petitioner's father, who served as an exserviceman, the petitioner's name is recorded as "Rudra," and the date of birth is the same. In the Transfer Certificate, School Leaving Certificate, etc., the name of the petitioner is shown as "Rudra," and only in the Birth Certificate is his name recorded as "Rohit." In our opinion, it is covered under "erroneous in form or substance, or has
{3} been fraudulently or improperly made", and therefore, respondent No.3 has power to correct the same. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition by directing respondent No. 3 to carry out the correction of the petitioner's name as "Rudra" instead of "Rohit" in the Birth Certificate and to issue the corrected Birth Certificate accordingly. Such correction shall be made within a period of fifteen (15) days from today. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE S P Rane