Sayana Bano vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Held
The Court held that the petition was disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 3. The Court directed Respondent No. 3 to consider the letter/order dated 19.08.2025 and the letter dated 05.08.2025 issued by the District Education Officer, Gwalior. Respondent No. 3 was also directed to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of the order, if no order had already been passed. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must act upon verified documents and representations within a reasonable time, and High Courts can direct them to do so under Article 226 when there is undue delay.
Facts
The petitioner, Sayana Bano, was granted compassionate appointment in 1999 after her husband's death. Her service book initially recorded her date of birth as 18.11.1973. However, a gradation list published on 20.06.2014 erroneously mentioned her date of birth as 18.11.1965. The petitioner submitted representations and supporting documents, including her Class 5 mark sheet, Voter ID, Aadhaar Card, and PAN Card, for correction. The Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax Circle-I, verified her mark sheet through the District Education Officer, Gwalior, who confirmed the correct date of birth on 05.08.2025. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, GST Circle-I, Gwalior, forwarded the matter to Respondent No. 3 on 19.08.2025. However, Respondent No. 3 had not passed any order regarding the correction of her date of birth.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct Respondent No. 3 to consider the representations and verification reports for correcting the petitioner's date of birth from 18.11.1965 to 18.11.1973, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that her date of birth was wrongly recorded in the gradation list despite her service book and subsequent verification of her educational documents. She argued that the delay in correcting the date of birth by Respondent No. 3 necessitates judicial intervention. She relied on the verification reports and the forwarding letter dated 19.08.2025. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned counsel for the respondent/State did not oppose the limited prayer made by the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief(s):- "(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed; (ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner i.e. 18.11.1973 in place of 18.11.1965 in the interest of justice. (iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner."
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the husband of petitioner 1 WP-24743-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19631 was working on the post of Peon. After the death of her husband, petitioner was granted compassionate appointment in his place
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.