Allowed

Fariha Shahkar, v. The Regional Passport Officer

Telangana HC17 Oct 2012WP/32794/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by Fariha Shahkar seeking correction of typographical errors in her passport regarding date of birth and name. The Court directed the Respondent Regional Passport Officer to consider the petitioner's application supported by birth and school certificates and issue a revised passport with corrected entries within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to receive the petitioner's application for correction of passport entries, consider the evidence, and issue a revised passport with corrected date of birth and name within six

Fariha Shahkar, Vs The Regional… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32794 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 17.10.2012

Between:

Fariha Shahkar.

…..Petitioner

And

The Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad.

¶9

…..Respondent

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.32794 of 2012

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

This writ petition is filed, seeking a direction to the Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad-respondent herein, to correct the entries relating to the date of birth of petitioner as 04.01.1990 instead of 29.01.1989 and to correct her name as Fariha Shahkar instead of Fareeha Shahkar Firdous, in the passport bearing No.M 229156. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government, takes notice on behalf of respondent.

¶14

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶15

The petitioner has obtained passport bearing No.M 229156 from the Regional Passport Officer-respondent. Her date of birth has been recorded in the passport as 29.01.1989 and her name is mentioned as Fareeha Shahkar Firdous.

¶16

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the mistake relating to the entries of date of birth and name are only typographical, the respondent is empowered to correct the same in view of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of External Affairs in Circular dated 29.10.2007. It is also contended by him that this Court directed the respondent in similar writ petitions to entertain the application for correction of date of birth. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Arshiya Jabeen vs., The Regional Passport Officer (W.P.No.21156 of 2010) and Mohd. Nasrullah

¶17

Khan v. Regional Passport Office r^[1] . The petitioner has placed on record the copies of the Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal authorities and also her Secondary School Certificate, to substantiate her contention that her date of birth is 04.01.1990 and that her name is Fariha Shahkar.

¶18

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent to receive the application of petitioner seeking correction of entries with regard to her date of birth and name in the passport, taking into account the evidence/material to be produced by her, consider the same and issue necessary revised passport booklet with corrected entries, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of

¶19

receipt of this order.

¶20

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

As a sequel, WPMP.No.41770 of 2012 stands

¶22

closed.

¶23

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17^th October 2012 ajr

¶24

[1] 2005 (1) ALD 419

Fariha Shahkar, v. The Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fariha Shahkar, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Yerramada Ashok Reddy Vs The Inspector General of Registration

K.A. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. K. Anjina Reddy, Vs The District Collector, Anantapur.

Gogineni Vinaya Kumar, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Harijana Narasimhappa , Kuntappa Vs The District Collector, Anantapur,Anantapur District

Smt. Koppolu Krishnamma, Vs The Sub-Registrar

Ugrappa, S/o Narasimhappa, Vs The District Collector, Anantapur.