Partly allowed

Kuruvila Abraham v. Union of India

Kerala HC28 Oct 2016WP(C)/9041/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal to correct passport date of birth allegedly entered erroneously by travel agent. Court directed petitioner to explain delay in application filed after 14 years of using passport. Petition allowed, decision reserved for Passport Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to offer explanation for delay in applying for correction within two weeks; Passport Officer to decide within one month.

Kuruvila Abraham Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9041 of 2016 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

KURUVILLA ABRAHAM, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.AMPATTU THOMAS ABRAHAM, AMPATTU HOUSE, THIRUVALLA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN: 689 101.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.HARIDAS,

¶9

SMT.S.SIKKY, SMT.DIVYA K.NAIR, SRI.P.C.SHIJIN, SRI.RENJINI GEROGE CHERIAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110 001.

¶12

2. PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT SEVA KENDRA, GROUND FLOOR, CARMEL TOWERS, OPP. COTTON HILL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM, PIN: 695 001.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSIST. S.G. OF INDIA.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 9041 of 2016 (E)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 28/06/2003.

¶20

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VICAR OF THE CHURCH DATED 05/05/2005.

¶21

P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE OF PETITIONER DATED 16/07/2011.

¶22

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PETITIONER'S RENEWED PASSPORT DATED 10/12/2012.

¶23

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE WELCOME LETTER ISSUED BY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATES, DATED 04/08/2015.

¶24

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29/02/2016.

¶25

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 27/02/2016.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶31

W.P.(C). No.9041 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Petitioner was born on 31.5.1965. According to the

¶34

petitioner, the date of birth is correctly entered in the Register of Births, Birth Certificate, Baptism Register and Marriage Certificate. However, the travel agent while applying for passport erroneously entered the date of birth in the passport as 15.05.1965. The same has come to the notice of the petitioner while processing the application for migration to U.S. recently. Accordingly, petitioner submitted an application before the 1^st respondent seeking the said relief. Same was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent. However, the 2^nd respondent, according to the petitioner, refused to correct the date of birth. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate direction.

¶35

A statement is filed by respondents 1 and 2 admitting

¶36

that the petitioner is an Indian passport holder, whose date of birth is shown in the passport as 15.05.1965. However, it is stated that, petitioner has not approached the 2^nd respondent

¶37

W.P.(C). No.9041 of 2016

¶38

¶39

for correction of date of birth within time. It was after using the passport for 14 years, petitioner has now filed the application seeking to correct the date of birth. Since the issue in respect of correction of date of birth is before the clarification issued in the year, 2016, the same can be done if an explanation is offered by the petitioner explaining the circumstances under which the delay has occurred in submitting the application.

¶40

Therefore, there will be a direction to the petitioner to offer proper explanation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which shall be considered by the 2^nd respondent in accordance with law and take a decision at the earliest and at any rate within one month thereafter.

¶41

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

smv 28.10.2016

Kuruvila Abraham v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuruvila Abraham v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jose P.J Vs Binoy Kumar

P v Abdul Salam Vs the Union of India

Chandri R. Vs State of Kerala

Roland Vs Sajeev

Top Constructions Vs Superintending Engineer

Ajith Spices Vs Cochin Port Trust