High Court Kerala High Court

Muhammed Thanveer vs Passport Officer on 6 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Muhammed Thanveer vs Passport Officer on 6 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 481 of 2009(G)


1. MUHAMMED THANVEER
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PASSPORT OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.A.SREEJITH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :06/01/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                         ---------------------------
                        W.P.(C) No.481 of 2009
                     ------------------------------------
                Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009

                              JUDGMENT

Petitioner states that he was issued passport, copy of which is

Exhibit P1. According to the petitioner, the age and date of birth

shown in the passport was wrong and therefore by producing Exhibits

P2 to P4, petitioner sought correction of the date of birth and age as

entered in Exhibit P2. Orders were not passed in the application made

and when the petitioner searched in the Web site of Regional Passport

Office, he came to know that his application was not considered for the

reason that it is not accompanied by a court order requiring the

respondent to correct the age and date of birth. It is with that

grievance, this writ petition is filed with a prayer that the respondent

be directed to correct the date of birth and age as sought for by the

petitioner.

Heard learned Standing Counsel who is appearing on behalf of

the respondent. Standing Counsel referred me to Exhibit P5, where it is

stated that the application is kept pending for want of court order. In

fact this court in the judgment in Aboo Chettiyanthodi Vs. Regional

W.P.(C) No.481/2009
2

Passport Officer [2008(1) K.L.T. 992] has already held that Magistrate

has no power to issue such an order.

In view of this it is directed that the respondent shall consider the

application made by the petitioner for correction of Exhibit P1 Passport

without insisting on the production of any court order and order shall

be passed on Exhibit P5 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within

two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

scm