IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4788 of 2010(W)
1. SRI.SHAKEER.C.A., AGED 41,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
For Petitioner :SRI.PETER THARAKAN
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :06/04/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 4788 of 2010-W
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was issued with Passport bearing No.X751391 in the
year 1985, the period of which was upto 7.8.1990. This was extended upto
7.8.1995. Ext.P1 is the copy of the same. Ext.P2 is the copy of the new
passport issued as No.T 605173 which was valid upto 10.1.2006. Ext.P3 is
the copy of the passport issued for the period from 13.6.2005 to 12.6.2015.
In all these passports the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as
5.3.1963 instead of 29.4.1968. According to the petitioner, this was caused
inadvertently. Apart from that, in these passports, his name is shown as
Abdul Shakeer instead of Shakeer. Ext.P4 is the copy of the relevant page
of the SSLC book.
2. In order to correct his name and initial in the records, the
petitioner effected publication in the Kerala Gazette, a copy of which has
been produced as Ext.P5. For incorporating the correct name and initial of
the petitioner in the passport, the petitioner filed an application before the
Regional Passport Officer, Ernakulam. On the basis of the said application,
a new passport has been issued on 31.7.2009 which is numbered as
wpc 4788/2010 2
H4803916, the validity of which is upto 30.7.2019.
3. Thereafter, he was issued with Ext.P6 letter directing him to
produce the passport before the Passport Office. The petitioner accordingly
surrendered the passport. After waiting for some time, he filed Ext.P8
request to return the passport. According to him, he wants to go to Saudi
Arabia to observe Umra, a religious practice.
4. As directed by this Court, the respondents have filed a statement.
It is averred in para 4 that with regard to the correction of date of birth there
were no sufficient documents. Accordingly, a letter was issued to surrender
the passport. It is further pointed out that for correcting an entry like the
one, a declaratory order issued by the concerned Munsiff’s Court is
necessary. It is also stated in para 5 that the first respondent has no
objection for restoring the passport if the petitioner produce a copy of the
birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths before the first
respondent and after imposing penalty/fine under the relevant provisions of
the Passport Act, 1967.
5. With regard to the change of name, it is further pointed out that the
applicant should furnish two documents, viz. a sworn affidavit and paper
cutting of two leading daily newspapers.
6. Heard learned counsel on both sides.
7. With regard to the correction of date of birth, the stand taken by
the respondents is that as the petitioner has applied for correction of date of
wpc 4788/2010 3
birth in the passport after two years, a declaratory order is necessary. With
regard to this aspect, this Court has considered a similar question in W.P.
(C) No.5506/2010. Therein, in paragraphs 4 and 5, after referring t the
circular also, it was held thus:
“A declaration from a Court is required in a case where the
initial entry has been made on the basis of a supportive document
issued by one competent authority i.e. School/educational authority
and the applicant subsequently requests for a change on the basis of
a certificate issued by another competent authority i.e. Municipal
authorities etc., resulting in conflicting documents for valid proof.
Herein the petitioner is having only one document i.e., the copy of
the Admission Register.
5. Then the question is whether Clause (c) in
Annexure R1(A) will stand in the way of passport issuing authority
making any correction. Discretion could be exercised where the
correction is one not more than two years and applicant provides
satisfactory explanation. In this case it is not clear when the initial
entry was made and what was the document produced before the
competent authorities at that time. Clause (c) in circular R1(A)
reads thus: “Where files have already been destroyed, PIAs could
use their discretion in correction of date of birth without a Court
Order, where such correction is only in months (not more than two
years) and applicants provide satisfactory explanation that the same
document was provided at the time of initial passport application.”
The period of two years is prescribed for the administrative
convenience. That does not mean that in other cases there is a total
bar in exercising the power.”
wpc 4788/2010 4
8. In the light of the above, a declaratory order from the court is not
necessary in all cases. Herein, the petitioner produced the relevant page of
SSLC book showing the correct date of birth. It is shown that the initial
entry is a clerical mistake. The various documents produced can be
accepted subject to verification. Going by the details furnished by the
petitioner, it can be seen that the earlier entry can only be a mistake.
Therefore, the same can be corrected in the light of the original of Ext.P4.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
petitioner has already produced the Gazette copy and he will file a sworn
affidavit and produce the paper cuttings of two dailies as stated in para 6 of
the statement.
10. Therefore, if the petitioner produces all these details within a
period of three weeks, the same will be accepted and appropriate action will
be taken to return the passport to the petitioner without any delay.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/