Nazar v. Union of India

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 2014/12TH VAISAKHA, 1936** **WP(C).No. 7748 of 2014 (P)** **---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): --------------------------** **NAZAR, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.SALI, NAJEEM MANZIL, AMBALAMUKKU NELLAD P.O., VAMANAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (FROM ODUKATHU VILA VEEDU, AZHOOR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.)** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR** **RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------** ## **1. UNION OF INDIA** **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI - 110001** ## **2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER** ## **REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.** ## **3. THE SECRETARY** **BOARD OF PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.** **R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.LILLY K.T.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXTS:** |**EXT.P1:**|**COPY OF THE PASSPORT NO. U 919472 OF THE PETITIONER**| |---|---| ||**ISSUED IN THE YEAR 1983.**| |**EXT.P2:**|**COPY OF THE RENEWED PASSPORT NO L 5208692 OF THE**| ||**PETITIONER.**| |**EXT.P3:**|**COPY OF THE SCHOOL CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXT.P4:**|**COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.03.2014 SUBMITTED**| ||**BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| ## **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. --------------------------------W.P.(C) No.7748 OF 2014 --------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of May, 2014** **J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~** It is averred that the petitioner is a citizen of India and that he was holding Ext.P1 Indian passport No.U 919472, which was renewed on 12.11.2013 by the 2[nd] respondent Regional Passport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram and that the renewed Ext.P2 passport No. L 5208692 was issued to him. It is his case that he had submitted the application for passport through an agent as the petitioner is uneducated and unaware of the formalities and that before renewal, the petitioner found that his date of birth entered in the passport is wrongly entered as 23.05.1953 and that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 25.04.1967. That he had instructed his agent to show the correct date of birth as 25.04.1967 in the application for renewed passport, that was not done by his agent, which resulted in the wrong entry of the date of birth in his passport, it is averred. It is case of the petitioner that his correct date of birth is 25.04.1967 and the same has been duly and properly entered in Ext.P3 school certificate issued by the competent 2 W.P.(C) No.7748/2014 authority and the petitioner believed that he had submitted the copy of Ext.P2 school certificate also at the time of filing of application for passport earlier in the year 1983 and it is only recently he understood that his original date of birth has been mistakenly entered in his passport. 2. According to the petitioner, he has submitted an application along with the original of the above said passport and Ext.P3 school certificate before the 2[nd] respondent Regional Passport Officer on 25.02.2014 for correction of his date of birth as 25.04.1967 in Ext.P2 passport on the basis of Ext.P3 school certificate. He had also send Ext.P4 online application dated 27.3.2014 for the same purpose, in which also he had showed his date of birth correctly as 25.04.1967 on the basis of Ext.P3 school certificate, it is stated. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2[nd] respondent, Regional Passport Officer, directed the petitioner to produce an order from the competent court declaring his date of birth as 25.4.1967, along with the application, and that without producing such a court order, they will not issue a new corrected passport on the basis of Ext.P3 school certificate and that without correcting his date of birth in Ext.P2 passport, the petitioner is unable to return to his work 3 W.P.(C) No.7748/2014 place in gulf country etc., it is averred. 3. It is in the above background of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has instituted this Writ Petition, containing the following prayers: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2[nd] respondent to make correction of the date of birth in the petitioner's passport after considering Ext.P3 school certificate; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2[nd] respondent to correct the petitioner's date of birth in his passport as 25.04.1967 and iii) to pass such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts of this case, including the costs of the petitioner in this proceeding.” 4. The petitioner relies on certain decisions of this Court in the matter of correction of date of birth in the passport. 5. Heard Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the official respondents 1 and 2 as well as the State Government Pleader appearing for the 3[rd] respondent. 4 W.P.(C) No.7748/2014 6. The main issue to be decided in this case is as to whether the 2[nd] respondent has the competence to correct the date of birth entered in Ext.P2 passport on the basis of the entry of date of birth in Ext.P3 school certificate. The point is no longer res integra and is covered by the judgments in a series of decisions of this Court. In the case between **Aboo v. Regional Passport Officer** reported in 2008(1) KLT 992, this Court considered various Circulars issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs. In the Circular No.VI/401/2/5/2001 dated 18.4.2001, the Ministry of External Affairs ordered that where an applicant is seeking clarification/correction of a mistake in the entry on the date of birth/place of birth in the passport, the PIA (Passport Issuing Authority) may after verify/satisfy himself, effect the correction treating the same as a technical correction and there is no need for a declaratory court order in such cases and secondly, where a competent authority issuing a birth certificate or an educational board registering a date of birth along with the place of birth as valid were to issue any correction or amendment, the PIA may effect the necessary amendment in the passport without insisting on a Court Order and thirdly, where the initial entry has been W.P.(C) No.7748/2014 5 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 resulting in conflicting sources of valid proof, then the competent authority of the passport office should direct the applicant to obtain a civil order from a competent court of jurisdiction, certifying the valid date of birth/place of birth. Certain other Circulars has also issued as on 29.10.2007, etc., by the Ministry of External Affairs have also been considered by this Court in the aforementioned reported decision. This Court on the basis of the various Circulars issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs held in para 12 of the decision reported in **Aboo's** case (supra) that the passport issuing authority is competent to consider the claim of the applicant with reference to the extract of the admission register of the School concerned and carry out the necessary rectifications regarding the date of birth of the petitioner, in case such a course is possible in the light of the circulars referred to above, etc. 6 W.P.(C) No.7748/2014 7. In the case between **Raveendran Pillai v. Vice Consul Consulate General of India, Dubai** reported in 2011 (3) KLT 652, the Division Bench of this Court affirmed the correctness of the decision rendered in Aboo's case (supra). In the case between **Swapna Siju v. Union of India** reported in 2012(4) KLT 419, this Court in paragraphs 7 and 8 held that in view of the Circulars issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs that in the case of applicants who are born before 26.1.1989, it is not necessary to produce an extract from the Register of Births, generally called the birth certificate, to prove the date of birth of the applicant and that the circulars also confer power on the Passport Issuing Authority with the discretionary power to correct the date of birth in a passport where he or she is satisfied with reference to the birth certificate of the school records that the earlier entry was mistakenly made. The circular also notices that the mistake regarding the date of birth might have been committed either by the applicant himself or by the Passport Issuing Authority and that in the case of applicants born before 26.1.1989, the Secondary School Leaving Certificate is a document which can be relied on to prove the date of birth and as the original of the Secondary School W.P.(C) No.7748/2014 7 Leaving Certificate was available for examination if necessary by the Passport Issuing Authority, it was held by this Court therein that the Passport Issuing Authority should have acted on the entry regarding the date of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and issued a passport to the petitioner therein showing the date of birth on the basis of the above said Secondary School Leaving Certificate. Similarly, in the case between **Nazar v. Union of India** reported in 2013 (4) KLT 34, this Court held that the Register of Births and Birth Certificates issued by such authority concerned need not be the sole basis for the correction of the date of birth of persons born before 26.1.1989 and that it is not necessary to produce an extract from Register of Births to prove the date of birth in such cases and that in the case of persons who have not completed SSLC or has left school before that, production of SSLC Book is not necessary by virtue of the instructions in the passport information booklet and that the relevant certificate showing the Date of Birth Certificate issued by the school last attended by such applicant is sufficient and it is for the competent passport officers to consider and ascertain the genuineness and correctness of such certificates by calling for the particulars through their own 8 W.P.(C) No.7748/2014 machinery or through the school concerned or get the verification as to the factual details through the police or deploy such other source or machinery. 8. In the light of the above said legal position settled by this Hon'ble Court, the impugned rejection order endorsed in Ext.P4 is ultravires and the 2[nd] respondent, Regional Passport Officer, is bound to consider the application of the petitioner for correction of date of birth entered in Ext.P2 passport on the basis of Ext.P3 school certificate. Accordingly, it is directed that the 2[nd] respondent, Regional Passport Officer, shall immediately take up for consideration the application submitted by the petitioner on 25.2.2014 or Ext.P4 online application in that regard, as referred to in paragraph 6 of the Writ Petition for consideration along with Ext.P3 school certificate. The 2[nd] respondent shall advert to all relevant aspects in the facts and circumstances of this case and after following the necessary procedure in that regard, take a decision on the request of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth as 25.4.1967 in Ext.P2 passport, on the basis of Ext.P3 school certificate, within a outer time limit of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. It will be open to the 2[nd] respondent to seek any additional clarification or materials that 9 W.P.(C) No.7748/2014 may be available with the petitioner, in which case, the petitioner shall forthwith provide such clarifications or materials in his possession. In order to effectuate the compliance of this direction, in case the application for correction of date of birth in the passport and the original of the passport has been return back to the petitioner, then the petitioner should submit such application along with the original of the passport, while producing certified copy of this judgment before the 2[nd] respondent Regional Passport Officer. All necessary action should be taken by the 2[nd] respondent, Regional Passport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram to take a decision as directed above without much delay, keeping in view the plea of the petitioner that he has to urgently return back to work in the gulf country. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands finally disposed of. SD/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.** ps/5/5/2014