Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6218/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6218 of 2011
=========================================================
HARSHADBHAI
NAROTTAMBHAI RAY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
REGIONAL
PASSPORT OFFICER - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NIRAV SANGHVI FOR MR ASHISH M DAGLI
for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR YV VAGHELA, CENTRAL GOVT.STANDING COUNSEL
for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 30/06/2011
ORAL ORDER
1. This
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed, with the following prayers :
“A) That
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit this Special Civil
Application.
B) This
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application
by issuing a fresh passport to the petitioner and correcting the name
of the mother of the present petitioner in the passport No.G-1207885
issued to the petitioner as “Rai Gangaben Narottambhai”
instead of Rai Chanchalben Narottambhai in the interest of justice.
C) Grant
such other and further relief(s) as deemed just and proper by this
Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.”
2. The
grievance of the petitioner is that the name of his mother in the
passport issued to him on 11.01.2007, is not correctly recorded,
being mentioned as Rai Chanchalben Narottambhai, whereas the correct
name is Rai Gangaben Narottambhai. The petitioner has made a detailed
representation to the respondent (Regional Passport Officer) on
01.03.2011 for correction of the name of his mother in the said
passport, but neither has any reply been received from the
respondent, and nor has any process been initiated for correction of
the name of the petitioner’s mother. Hence, the present petition.
3. At
the outset, Mr.Nirav Sanghvi, learned advocate for Mr.Ashish M.
Dagli, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest
of justice would be met, if the respondent is directed to consider
and decide the representation made by the petitioner within a
stipulated period of time.
4. Heard
Mr.Nirav Sanghvi, learned advocate for Mr.Ashish M. Dagli, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Y.V.Vaghela, learned Central
Government Standing Counsel for the respondent, who has appeared on
supply of an advance copy of the petition, as directed by the Court.
5. In
view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the following order is passed :
The
respondent (Regional Passport Officer) shall consider and decide the
representation dated 01.03.2011 made by the petitioner regarding the
correction of the name of his mother in passport No.G1207885, which
has been issued to him on 11.01.2007.
While
doing so, the respondent shall afford the petitioner an opportunity
of being heard.
It
is open to the respondent to call upon the petitioner to produce any
documents that may be necessary in order to decide the matter. The
petitioner shall be intimated regarding the date of hearing, and the
documents that may be required to be submitted by him, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The decision upon the representation shall be made within a period of
four weeks from the date of hearing given to the petitioner.
The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms, without entering into
the merits of the case.
Direct
Service of this order is permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
~gaurav~
Top