Allowed

Chandra Sagili, v. The Regional Passport Officer

Telangana HC14 Feb 2013WP/4468/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider the petitioner's application for correcting the date of birth in his passport. The court relied on a Ministry of External Affairs circular regarding conflicting date of birth proofs and mandated the issuance of a fresh passport within one month if the initial date lacked support, or communicated appropriate orders otherwise.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to receive application, consider it per circular, and issue fresh passport or pass appropriate order within one month.

Chandra Sagili, Vs The Regional… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4468 of 2013

¶2

DATED: 14.02.2013

Between:

Chandra Sagili

.. Petitioner

and

The Regional Passport Officer, Office of the Regional Passport Office, Near Manohar Theater, Secunderabad.

¶8

.. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Mohd. Gulam Rasool Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud Assistant Solicitor General.

¶9

The Court made the following:-

¶10

O R D E R:

¶11

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not issuing a fresh passport by correcting the petitioner’s date of birth as 02.07.1984 in place of 02.07.1979 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

According to the petitioner, in the passport issued on 09.01.2002, his date of birth was wrongly shown as 02.07.1979. When the petitioner allegedly approached the respondent for correction of his date of birth in the passport, the latter’s office refused to entertain his request by insisting that the petitioner shall obtain an order from the Court for entertaining such request.

¶13

Clause (c) of Circular __/401/2/5/2001, dated 18-4-2001, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, inter alia provides as under:

¶14

“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.”

¶15

The respondent is, therefore, directed to receive the petitioner’s application and consider the same in the light of the above-mentioned circular. If the respondent is convinced that the entry of the petitioner’s date of birth in the existing passport is not supported by any certificate

¶16

issued by the competent authority, he shall consider the SSC certificate of the petitioner, on which he is placing reliance, and issue fresh passport with the date mentioned in the said certificate as the petitioner’s date of birth. In a converse situation, the respondent shall pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. He shall complete this exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner.

¶17

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

As a sequel, WPMP.No.5583 of 2013 filed for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

______________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶20

14^th February, 2013 V V

Chandra Sagili, v. The Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Sagili, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Adinaryana, Vs Sri Rajeshwar Tiwari, I.A.S.

Gangana Obi Reddy, Vs Kolala Ujjinappa , Gittappa

Kumari Chinanapa Reddy, Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Thotakura Kalpana, Vs The Sub-Registrar, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam

Glory Mahila Seva Sadan M.P.H.W.(F) Training Institute, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Satish Kumar Parvathareddy, Vs The Sub-Registrar, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam