Allowed

Syed Shareef v. The Regional Passport Officer

Telangana HC9 Mar 2010WP/5357/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Passport Officer to accept and consider the petitioner's application to correct his date of birth in his passport. Citing a Government of India Circular, the court held that a civil court decree is only necessary when conflicting documents exist, but not for simple technical corrections based on a single educational certificate.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to receive the application for correction and dispose of it within three weeks.

Syed Shareef Vs The Regional… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.5357 of 2010

¶6

Between: Syed Shareef. … Petitioner And The Regional Passport Officer, O/o. Regional Passport Office, Near Prashant Talkies, Secunderabad.

¶7

… Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy. Counsel for the respondent: Sri Satyanarayana for Sri C.Srinivas Baba, Addl. Standing Counsel for

¶9

the Central Government.

¶10

This Court made the following:

¶11

ORDER:-

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent in considering the petitioner’s application for correction of date of birth in his passport bearing No.E-1990476 as 13-1-1985, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondent to correct the date of birth in his passport as per the Secondary School Certificate issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Hyderabad.

¶13

I have heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri Satyanarayana, learned counsel representing Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government.

¶14

In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that he has entrusted the work of obtaining passport to an agent and due to the mistake committed by him, the petitioner’s date of birth was shown in the passport as 16-6-1980 instead of 13-1-1985. The petitioner further averred that when he sought to present the application for rectification of the said mistake in the passport, the subordinate officer of the respondent, while refusing to receive the same, asked the petitioner to approach the civil Court and obtain a decree before filing such an application.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Circular, dated 18-4-2001, issued by the

¶16

Government of India and contended that the petitioner’s case falls under Clause (a) of the said Circular. It is relevant to reproduce the contents of the said Circular hereunder:

¶17

“ a) Where an applicant is seeking rectification/correction of a mistake in the entry on date of birth/place of birth in the passport, PIA (Passport issuing authority) may after verifying/satisfying himself, affect the correction treating the same as a technical correction. There is no need for a declaratory order in such cases.

¶18

b) Where a competent authority issuing a birth certificate or an educational board registering a date of birth along with place of birth as valid were to issue any correction or amendment, PIA may effect the necessary amendment in the passport without insisting on a Court Order. As per the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1997, a competent authority issuing a certificate could also make necessary amendments to the same.

¶19

c) Where the initial entry has been 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, the PIA should direct the applicant to obtain a civil order from a competent Court of jurisdiction, certifying the valid date of birth/place of birth”.

¶20

According to the above Circular, where the passport issuing authority is satisfied that a mistake occurred in the entry of date of birth, after verification/satisfying himself, he can effect correction in the passport treating the same as a technical correction; and, in such a case, there is no need for a declaratory order. Even in cases falling under Clause (b), where the competent authority, who has issued the certificate earlier, has issued a corrected or amended certificate, there is no need for

¶21

the person seeking rectification of entry in the passport regarding date of birth to approach a civil Court and obtain a decree. It is only in respect of the persons falling in Clause (c) i.e., where there are two conflicting documents issued by different authorities, a person will have to approach the civil Court and obtain a decree.

¶22

From the averments contained in the affidavit, it appears that the petitioner’s case falls under Clause (a) supra, i.e., on the basis of the Secondary School Certificate the petitioner is seeking rectification/correction of the mistake crept in the passport. If the respondent is satisfied that there is no other conflicting document produced on behalf of the petitioner, on the basis of which the passport was issued, he shall correct the date of birth in the petitioner’s passport without relegating him to the civil Court. If, on the other hand, the respondent finds a certificate issued by a competent authority containing the petitioner’s date of birth on the basis of which passport was issued and the said entry is coming into conflict with the document, which the petitioner is now proposing to produce, then only the petitioner can be asked to obtain a decree from the competent civil Court.

¶23

The respondent is, therefore, directed to receive the petitioner’s application for correction of his date of birth and issuance of corrected passport and dispose of the same in the light of the observations contained above, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the said application.

¶24

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

-----------------------------------C.V.NAGARJUNA

¶26

REDDY,J

¶27

Date:09-3-2010 MNR

Syed Shareef v. The Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Shareef v. The Regional Passport Officer

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

Syed Ali , Munaser Vs Government of A.P.

Naveetha Vs The Commissioner of Police

M/s.SRee Balaji Cement Limited, rep.by its Prop. Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Bobba Nanda Kumar Vs The District Level Sand Committee

S. Adinarayana Reddy, Vs The Circle Inspector of Police

Vari Kuti Vamsha Vardhana Reddy Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation