Disposed

Bomma Kushal Reddy, v. The Regional Passport Officer

Telangana HC22 Feb 2013WP/5319/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition involves a grievance wherein the petitioner, whose passport contained an incorrect date of birth, faced refusal from the respondent to entertain a rectification application without a court order. The court directed the authority to process the application based on relevant Ministry guidelines regarding conflicting birth proofs. The petition was disposed of with specific instruct

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent to receive the application for passport correction, consider the Birth Certificate as proof, and issue a fresh passport with the correct date of birth if the certificate is fro

Bomma Kushal Reddy, Vs The Regional… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.5319 of 2013

¶3

Dated 22.02.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bomma Kushal Reddy

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad

¶9

…Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Mohammed Zakir Hussain

¶11

Counsel for the respondent: Mr.A.Samir Kumar Reddy, Addl. SC for CG

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

Order:

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has not been receiving his application for issuance of a fresh passport with correct date of birth. According to the petitioner, in the passport issued on 03.12.2010, his date of birth was wrongly shown as ‘24.11.2005’, whereas his correct date of birth as per the Birth Certificate is ‘10-02-2006’. When the petitioner allegedly approached the respondent, the latter’s office refused to entertain the application by insisting that he shall obtain an order from the Court for entertaining such application.

¶15

Clauses (a), (d) and (e) of Circular No.VI/401/2/5/2001, dated 29-10-2007, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, inter alia provide as under:

¶16

“(a) Where an applicant claims clerical/technical mistake in the entry relating to birth/place of birth in the passport and asks for rectification/correction; in all such cases the documents produced earlier as proof of date of birth/place of birth at the time of issue of passport may be perused (if not already

¶17

destroyed) by PIA. In case, it is a clerical mistake either by the applicant or the PIA, date/place of birth correction may be allowed by issue of fresh passport booklet; in the former case, by charging fee for fresh passport and in the latter, ‘gratis’. There is no need for declaratory court order in such cases.

¶18

(d) 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 procure an order from a First Class Judicial Magistrate, to effect the change as per Passport Manual, 2001 ( In some obtain states, this function is discharged by Civil Magistrates).”

¶19

(e) For those born on or after 26-01-1989, birth Certificate is the only approved document, as already prescribed.”

¶20

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 issued by the competent authority, he shall consider the Birth Certificate of the petitioner, on which he is placing reliance, and issue a 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

¶21

petitioner. He shall complete this exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner.

¶22

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶23

As a sequel, WPMP.No.6635 of 2013, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶24

_____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J

¶25

Date: 22^nd February, 2013 lur

Bomma Kushal Reddy, v. The Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bomma Kushal Reddy, 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

Cheppala Venkata Sivarami Reddy Vs The District collector

Smt M Balamma, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Manukonda Venkata Reddy, Vs The Sub-Registrar

Smt. K.R.Shyamala, Vs The District Collector

Diddi Hanumaiah Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

P. Ashok Kumar, Vs The District Registrar