Disposed

Moghal Sahiblal Baig, v. The Regional Passport Officer

Telangana HC10 Sept 2013WP/26314/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the Passport Officer's decision not to renew the petitioner's passport due to a date of birth discrepancy. The Court directed the respondent to decide and communicate the outcome if the application was received.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the application if received and communicate the decision within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Moghal Sahiblal Baig, Vs The Regional Passport… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26314 of 2013

¶2

Date: 10.09.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Moghal Sahiblal Baig

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

and

¶7

The Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Jayaram Reddy Counsel for respondent: Ms.A.V.Viajaya Kumari, for Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, Assistant Solicitor General

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of

¶12

the respondent in not renewing the petitioner’s passport bearing No. B1626401 with correct date of birth based on SSC record as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

I have heard Sri M.Jayaram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms.A.V.Vijaya Kumari, learned counsel representing Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent.

¶14

The petitioner pleaded that he held aforementioned passport issued on 03.03.2000, which expired on 02.03.2010, that he had studied up to intermediate and that while his date of birth is 01.07.1967, the same was wrongly mentioned in his passport as 23.04.1965 as at the time of his applying for the passport, there was ambiguity with regard to his date of birth. The petitioner submitted postal proof in support of his plea that the application sent by him was delivered to the respondent on 03.07.2013.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that if the application filed by the petitioner was received by the office of the respondent, the respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time.

¶16

In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent to take appropriate decision, if the petitioner’s application was received by his office, and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.32541 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶19

10^th September, 2013

¶20

GHN

Moghal Sahiblal Baig, v. The Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moghal Sahiblal Baig, 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

M/s Meenakshi Infrastructure Private Ltd. Vs The District Collector

G.Sitaravamma W/o Koteswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Polavarapu Veera Raghava Sarma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B .a .S . Granites Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh Industries and Commerce

Bajini Veeraiah Vs The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records

Cheera Shankaramma, Vs The District Collector