ORDER
P.C.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Additional Solicitor General, waives service for respondent No. 1. Mr. A.L. Patki, Additional Government Pleader, waives service for respondent No. 2. By consent, Rule called out and heard.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, the father of a minor girl, Payal Yogesh Patel, seeks a direction to the Union of India in the Ministry of External Affairs through the Regional Passport Officer to rectify what is alleged to be a mistake in the date of birth committed by the Regional Passport Office while issuing a passport to his daughter Payal.
3. In the application submitted to the Regional Passport Officer at Mumbai in April, 1998, the date of birth of Payal was indicated as “28-05-1983”. The applicant submitted a xerox copy of a previous passport No. E-288403 as proof of date of birth. In the previous passport also the date of birth of the petitioner’s daughter Payal had been shown as 28-05-1983. On the strength of these particulars supplied by the applicant, a passport bearing No. A-
5477622 was issued to the daughter of the petitioner in which the date of, birth was shown as “28-05-1983”. The petitioner complains by this petition that this is erroneous as the correct date of birth of Payal is 28-05-1982. In support, he produced before us an extract of the school leaving certificate Exhibit “C” and a certificate from the birth register maintained by the Bombay Municipal Corporation Exhibit “D”. We notice that the school leaving certificate is issued by Smt. Jayaben B. Knot High School, Borivli (East), Bombay 400 066 on 29th June, 1998 and the extract from the birth register is issued on 15th June, 1988. The petitioner applied to the Regional Passport Officer on the strength of these documents and sought rectification of the particulars of date of birth of his daughter Payal in the passport issued to her. This request was refused by the Regional Passport Office by the order dated 4th June, 1999 (Exhibit “E”) on the ground that there was no provision in the Indian Passports Act or the Rules framed thereunder for rectification of particulars furnished and that the applicant shall produce a declaratory judicial order in support. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. We have heard the petitioner’s Counsel and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, learned Additional Solicitor General, for respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that the Indian Passports Act, 1967 and the Rules framed thereunder contain no provision for rectification of any entry made in the passport, even if the entry has been made erroneously. Dr. Chandrachud made available for our perusal the original application of Payal Yogesh Patel made for passport. After perusal of the particulars therein, we are satisfied that the mistake, if any, was not on the part of the Regional Passport Office inasmuch as the application in terms indicated the date of birth of Payal as 28th May, 1983. Mr. Bhavsar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that this was a mistake on the part of the petitioner or his daughter. The mistake had appeared earlier when a passport was applied for in the year 1988 and it has been carried over. The need for rectification has become an urgent necessity now since Payal’s application for visa to a foreign country has been held up because of the discrepancy. Payal intends to go abroad for higher studies. He, therefore, requests this Court to hold that the true date of birth of the petitioner’s daughter Payal is 28th May, 1982 and not 28th May, 1983 and direct respondent No. 1 to rectify the mistake made in the passport issued to Payal with regard to the particulars of date of birth.
5. The learned Additional Solicitor General contends that neither under the Act, nor under the Rules framed thereunder is there any adjudicatory power conferred upon the authorities to carry out the exercise of rectification of particulars entered in a Passport. On the other hand, it is pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General that there is a note in paragraph 4 of the “Passport Information Booklet” which reads as follows :
“Note—Date of birth/Place of birth once included in the passport will not be changed; for change the applicant will have to make a fresh application enclosing relevant evidence for obtaining fresh passport with correct date of birth and place of birth alongwith a Court order by a Judicial Magistrate directing the passport officer to change the date or place of birth.”
The import of this note was considered by a judgment of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 2012 of 1994-H Sosomma Iypo v. Union of India & an-
other. Relying on this judgment, which appears to have decided an identical issue, the learned Additional Solicitor General contended that, at the highest, this Court can issue a direction to the Judicial Magistrate, within whose jurisdiction the petitioner resides, to make an enquiry and by a judicial order decide as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner’s daughter Payal is 28th May, 1982 as contended by the petitioner or whether it is 28th May, 1983 as entered in her passport. We are in agreement with the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General. In the absence of an adjudicatory machinery incorporated in the provisions of the Indian Passports Act and the Rules framed thereunder, we would have to exercise our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct an appropriate judicial officer to carry out this adjudicatory exercise and make an appropriate order. In our view, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivli would be the appropriate Judicial Officer to carry out this exercise.
6. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed and we make the following order;
(i) The Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivli, within whose jurisdiction the petitioner resides, shall hear the petitioner, Regional Passport authority, Bombay Municipal Corporation authorities and the concerned Police Officers and, after making such enquiry and taking such evidence as he deems fit, make an order as to whether the true date of birth of the petitioner’s daughter Payal Yogesh Patel is 28th May, 1982 or 28th May, 1983, He shall not raise or entertain any objection on the issue of jurisdiction.
(ii) In case the Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivli concerned holds that the date of birth of the petitioner’s daughter Payal is 28th May, 1982, the respondent No. 1 shall accordingly correct the passport of Payal Yogesh Patel, within two weeks of the said order being furnished to him.
7. The petitioner’s Counsel submits that Payal Yogesh Patel has applied for admission to a foreign University and, therefore, the matter is urgent. In view of the urgency of the matter, we direct that the entire adjudicatory and rectificatory exercise shall be carried out within four weeks of the date of writ of this Court reaching the Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivli.
8. Rule accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs.
9. Issuance of certified copy expedited.
10. Writ to go down FORTHWITH.
11. Petition partly allowed.