Disposed

Mathilakathuveettil Rafeeque@Mohammadrafic M.B, v. Chief Passport Officer

Kerala HC15 Feb 2024WP(C)/204/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An NRI working in the UAE sought correction of his passport date of birth to match his Birth Certificate, after a civil suit for declaration failed. The court disposed of the writ petition directing that if he applies within one month with sufficient reasons for delay, the Passport Authority must consider it in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider application for date-of-birth correction with reasons for delay, per rules; no merits decided.

Mathilakathuveettil Rafeeque@Mohammadrafic M.B, Vs Chief Passport Officer — Kerala HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 204 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MATHILAKATHUVEETTIL RAFEEQUE @ MOHAMMADRAFIC M.B,
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O BERAN, MATHILAKATHVEETTIL
HOUSE,VENKIDANGUDEASM, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE,
CHAVAKADTHALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
P.O KANNOTH, PIN – 680510

¶8

BY ADVS.
PADMINIDEVI.C
A.SHAMSUDEEN
MOHAMMED RAZALI K.A
BILAL SHAMSUDEEN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER (THE JOINT SECRETARY, PSP AND CPO DIVISION), MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, UNION OF INDIA, ROOM NO.8, PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶11

2 THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA AL HAMRIYA, DIPLOMATIC ENCLAVE, P.O. BOX 737, DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, TEL: +9714 3971222/ 04 3971333, FAX : 04.3970453, EMAIL: [email protected], PIN - 737

¶12

3THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
PASSPORT OFFICE, NEAR IDBI CORPORATE BRANCH
SHIHABTHANGAL ROAD,PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI,
KERALA., PIN – 682036

¶13

SRI.S. MANU, DSGI

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C) No.204 of 2024

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2024

¶19

The petitioner is a Non Resident Indian, who is currently employed in the United Arab Emirates. The petitioner was born on 05.02.1965. But, according to his Passport records, the petitioner's date of birth is recorded as 15.06.1958.

¶20

The petitioner was issued with a Passport on the 15^th day of attaining majority i.e. on 20.02.1983. The said document was processed and issued based on the information provided by the petitioner's illiterate father during the petitioner's minority. During that period, the production of a Birth Certificate was not obligatory for school admission or Passport acquisition. In all subsequent renewals, the error was carried forward.

¶21

Recently, the petitioner encountered a requirement

¶22

from the employer to furnish the Birth Certificate or alternative proof of age for the purpose of updating employee data in

¶23

WP(C) No.204 of 2024

¶24

¶25

their digital system. In the absence of a Birth Certificate, the petitioner sought an extract of School Admission Register and only on receiving the extract of Admission Register from the School, he learnt about the difference in his age in the documents.

¶26

The petitioner initiated legal proceedings by filing OS No.967/2022 before the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad seeking for correction of Date of Birth in the Passport. The Munisff's Court was pleased to rule against the petitioner, passing Ext.P4 Judgment. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to issue appropriate direction to the 3^rd respondent-Regional Passport Officer to make all necessary corrections in the Passport, matching with entries in his Birth Certificate.

¶27

The Deputy Solicitor General of India entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition filing a statement. It is pointed out that the petitioner has filed OS No.967/2022 before the Munsiff’s Court,

¶28

¶29

WP(C) No.204 of 2024

¶30

Chavakkad for a Decree declaring that 05.02.1965 is his correct date of birth. The Regional Passport Officer was a respondent in that Suit. The Suit was dismissed. The petitioner has been holding the Passport for 41 years. It is after 41 years, the petitioner is seeking to correct the date of birth, which, if permitted, will make the petitioner approximately 7 years younger.

¶31

On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that it is incumbent upon every Passport holder to check the details entered in the Passport before putting them to use. It is further pointed out that in most of such cases, the applicants obtained Passport at a time when they were not eligible for employment abroad due to underage / age restrictions. As a matter of policy, the Government in pursuance of the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9073/2015 and connected cases,

¶32

had decided not to entertain any application seeking correction of date of birth.

¶33

¶34

WP(C) No.204 of 2024

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶36

and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the respondents.

¶37

From the pleadings, it is seen that an Original Suit filed by the petitioner for declaration as to the petitioner’s date of birth in which the Regional Passport Officer was also a party, stands rejected. But, it is to be noted that the petitioner now states that the petitioner holds a Birth Certificate issued by the Local Self Government evidencing that the petitioner’s year of birth is 1965. If the petitioner holds an automatic official record, then the respondents are bound to consider the application.

¶38

The Deputy Solicitor General of India would urge that the petitioner has not explained the delay for approaching the Passport Authorities for correction of date of birth. The explanation to delay comes only when the petitioner makes an application. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner approached the Indian Consulate in UAE, they

¶39

¶40

WP(C) No.204 of 2024

¶41

refused to accept the application.

¶42

In the facts of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioner makes an application for correction of date of birth advancing sufficient reason to condone the delay in making the application, the Passport Authority shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶43

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing that if the petitioner makes an application to the competent among the respondents for correction of date of birth advancing sufficient reasons for the delay, within a period of one month, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.204 of 2024

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 204/2024

¶51

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶52

Exhibit P1A COPY OF PASSPORT, NO. W5324469.
Exhibit P2A COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED
14/06/2023
Exhibit P3A COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE SCHOOL
ADMISSION REGISTER
Exhibit P4A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS 967/2022
DATED 15/03/2023 ON THE FILE OF
MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR
Exhibit P5A COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED
BY THE PASSPORT AUTHORITIES BEFORE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHAVAKKAD IN OS
967/2022

Mathilakathuveettil Rafeeque@Mohammadrafic M.B, v. Chief Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathilakathuveettil Rafeeque@Mohammadrafic M.B, v. Chief Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Riyas Kallumpurath Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Samjith Rajan Vs PNB Housing Finance Ltd.

V.P.Mohammed Ashraf Vs the District Magistrate

Sreekala R Vs Authorised Officer

T.P. Subair Vs Chief Manager

Usman.P. Vs Land Revenue Commissioner