Shaji E.R. v. Union of India and Regional Passport Officer, Kochi

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/25TH MAGHA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 24815 of 2016 (B)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **--------------------** **SHAJI E.R., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, EDACHALIL HOUSE, PERINNANAM WEST P.O, PERINNANAM, THRISSUR RURAL, KERALA, PIN-680 686.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN SMT.N.S.FATHIMATH SUHRA** **RESPONDENTS:** **--------------------------** **1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001** **2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, KOCHI, PIN-682 036.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 24815 of 2016 (B) -----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------** - **EXHIBITS P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NO:X754386.** - **EXHIBITS P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESENT PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NO.M5354638.** - **EXHIBITS P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IST PAGE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBITS P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION FOR PASSPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBITS P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 29/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **-------------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** -------------------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No.24815 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 14th day of February, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the 2[nd] respondent to accept the application for issuance of Passport by correcting the wrong entry of date of birth of the petitioner, and issue the renewed Passport in accordance with the correction carried out on the basis of Ext.P3 Secondary School Leaving Certificate, and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner was a holder of Passport bearing No.X754386 issued by the 2[nd] respondent in the year 1985, evident from Ext.P1. The Passport was being renewed from time to time and obtained the present Passport bearing No.M5354638 issued on 25.01.2015, evident from Ext.P2. However, the date of birth of the petitioner is incorrectly entered in Exts.P1 and P2 as 10.05.1963 instead of **10.05.1965.** According to the petitioner, the same has occurred due to the mistake of the agent to whom the 2 **W.P.(C) No.24815 of 2016** petitioner entrusted to take Passport, and the original Passport was taken without submitting any documents. However, when the petitioner attended a preliminary interview for a better job in U.A.E, on scrutiny, it was found that different entries are contained with respect to the date of birth in the School certificate and the Passport. Then only, petitioner realized the mistake. Thereupon, petitioner submitted an application to correct the date of birth, evident from Ext.P4 on-line application dated 13.07.2016. However, the 2[nd] respondent rejected the application for the reason that a court order is required, as endorsed in the application form. According to the petitioner, the said action is illegal and amounts to dereliction of statutory duty cast upon the 2[nd] respondent. The necessary correction can be carried out in accordance with the terms of Ext.P5 Circular dated 29.10.2007 by depending on the date of birth contained under Ext.P3 Secondary School Leaving Certificate. Other contentions are also raised by the petitioner with respect to the justification of the application submitted by the petitioner before the 2[nd] respondent. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a joint statement, basically admitting the submissions with respect to the 3 **W.P.(C) No.24815 of 2016** issuance of the Passport and subsequent renewal etc. etc. However, it is stated that, petitioner, for the past more than three decades, was using the Passport with date of birth as 10.05.1963. It is after about 30 years of using the Passport, the date of birth is sought to be corrected. It is also stated that the Regional Passport Office functions under the guidelines of Ministry of External Affairs, who issues instructions from time to time on various aspects affecting the issue of Passports to Indian citizens. As per clause (iii) para 4 of O.M. No.VI/401/2/5/2001 dated 26.11.2015, the Regional Passport office cannot entertain the petitioner's request for date of birth correction. It is also stated that, an O.M. was issued following the directives issued by this Court in the judgment in _**'Jayakumar v. Regional Passport Officer'**_ [2015 (3) KLT 158]. 4. It is also stated that, numerous applications are being filed before the 2[nd] respondent wherein date of birth correction is sought and the difference varies from 3 to 10 years from the date of birth as shown in the Passport. None of the applicants are able to clarify to the authorities the circumstance under which they are seeking correction of date 4 **W.P.(C) No.24815 of 2016** of birth, how a wrong entry of date of birth occurred in the Passport, the nature of the documents produced by the applicant before the Passport Issuing Authority while submitting application for Passport for the first time etc. etc. In the absence of any genuine explanation, it has to be presumed that the applicants had played fraud on the authorities while obtaining the Passport initially. That apart, it is contended that, the Passport issued by the Government of India is considered as one of the document of identity/ _prima facie_ evidence of nationality. The details furnished in the Passport are acted upon by the agency/person of the outside country in which he/she travels and resides as the authenticated details of his existence as a citizen of his/her country of origin. Therefore, after using the passport for a long period, when a person seeks change of entry in the Passport in respect of his date of birth, that will affect the very sanctity of the Passport itself. 5. Various other contentions are raised with respect to the correction sought by the applicants after a long period of issuance of passport and using the passport for a long period. Therefore, it is the contention of the respondents that the **W.P.(C) No.24815 of 2016** 5 application submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered at all. However, it is also stated that any application for correction of date of birth entry in the Passport after issuance of O.M. in 2001 can be done only in terms of the O.M. and no relaxation in the policy decision taken by the Central Government is warranted. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 7. It is true that it was based on the directives issued by this Court in the judgment in ' _**Jayakumar**_ ' _supra_ that Circular 2001 dated 26.11.2015 was amended and a period is prescribed by revamping the procedure for correcting the date of birth in the passport. It was thereupon that a period of 5 years is fixed in order to seek correction from the date of issuance of the Passport. Subsequent to the said judgment in ' _**Jayakumar**_ ' _supra_ , this Court had occasion to consider the issue in W.P.(C) No.4387 of 2016 and other connected writ petitions, and judgment was rendered on 09.03.2016, whereby the procedure was again revamped and directed to entertain 6 ## **W.P.(C) No.24815 of 2016** all applications if necessary parameters directed thereunder are followed by the applicant. 8. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, if the petitioner submits a proper application, explaining the delay caused in approaching the 2[nd] respondent, the same shall be considered, by the 2[nd] respondent in accordance with law. The application shall be submitted within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and the same shall be considered on its own merit, within a further period of three weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** //true copy// P.S. to Judge St/14.02.2017