Dismissed

Mohammed Rashid K.P. v. Union of India

Kerala HC9 Oct 2018WP(C)/17247/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought passport date of birth correction from 10.09.1990 to 10.12.1990 based on later documents. Court held authorities cannot ignore the primary Birth Certificate; petitioner must first approach civic authorities to correct their record before passport correction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach civic authorities to correct Birth Certificate.

Mohammed Rashid K.P. Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 17TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 17247 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMMED RASHID K.P. S/O JAMALUDHEEN K.P.KUTTASSERI HOUSE, VALIYAPRAMBA P.O.PULIKKAL, MALAPPURAM- 673 637

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL SMT.ANILA UMESH SMT.N.S.HASNA MOL SRI.K.AMAR RAGH SRI.N.MANEESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER MALAPPURAM

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.N.NAGARESH ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

CGC. SRI. JAISHANKER V NAIR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 17247 of 2018

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner applied to the respondent authorities and secured a passport. That passport showed his date of birth as 10.09.1990. And that date of birth was recorded based on the Birth Certificate the petitioner himself produced before the passport authorities.

¶21

2. Later, the petitioner wanted his date of birth changed in the passport. So he applied to the authorities. To have that correction, the petitioner produced School Leaving Certificate, Adhar Card, and other proofs. They all reflect his date of birth as 10.12.1990.

¶22

3. Aggrieved that the authorities have not acted on his application, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶23

4. In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the learned Central Government Counsel submits that the passport authorities, in the first place, did not record the date of birth wrongly. On the other hand, they reflected the date of birth as the petitioner represented. According to him, the Birth Certificate is the primary document originating earlier than all other documents now the petitioner has produced. To elaborate, the learned Central Government Counsel also submits that it is entirely open for the petitioner to approach the civic authorities concerned

¶24

WP(C).No. 17247 of 2018

¶25

¶26

that issued the date of birth certificate, have it corrected and, then, produce it before the passport authorities. That done,the authorities will consider the petitioner's request.

¶27

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel.

¶28

6. I do find force in the submissions made by the learned Central Government Counsel. It is not a question of clerical error committed by the passport authorities. They truly and faithfully reflected the date of birth the petitioner had supplied. Now, the petitioner wants the date of birth correction and the difference is only three months.

¶29

7. But the fact remains the date of birth certificate, reckoned to be the primary document, still reflects the date of birth as 10.09.1990. Ignoring that, the authorities may not correct the date of birth, for all the other documents now the petitioner has produced are later in point of time. Even otherwise, all the subsequent documents, strictly observed, ought to have reflected the date of birth as was shown in the Birth Certificate. Nevertheless, we need not go into that controversy.

¶30

8. It will suffice that this Court holds that as the respondents rightly contended, the petitioner can apply to the civic authorities that issued the Date of Birth Certificate, have its

¶31

WP(C).No. 17247 of 2018

¶32

¶33

correction, and then submit the corrected certificate before the respondent authorities, who then will act on that, in accordance with law.

¶34

With these observations, I dispose of this Writ Petition.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBITP1 COPY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

¶41

EXHIBITP2 COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

¶42

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE PAN CARD ISSUE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

¶43

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA EXHIBITP5 COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE

¶44

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH ONLINE

¶45

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶46

NIL

¶47

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

¶48

Mohammed Rashid K.P. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Rashid K.P. 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

Kadeeja Vs Authorised Officer

Shanavaskhan Vs Authorised Officer

Shakey Shahul Hameed Vs Regional Passport Officer

M/S. India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. Vs M/S. Jaj Enterprises

Thankachan P.A Vs Bank of Baroda

Immanuel Aviation & Cargo Services Pvt.Ltd., Rep. by Its Director Mrs.Rosy Panackal Vs State of Kerala