Dismissed

Mohammed Moiz Ahmed, v. The Regional Passport Officer

Telangana HC1 Jul 2014WP/17802/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to correct the date of birth in the petitioner's passport. The court held the petition is premature because no application for correction was first made to the Respondent.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

Mohammed Moiz Ahmed, Vs The Regional Passport… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶4

Present

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.17802 of 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Moiz Ahmed, S/o. Mohammed Manzoor Ahmed, Age 41 years, Occ: Self Employed, Presently residing at R/o.9-4-86/231/A, Ground Floor, Salarjung Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad.

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

AND The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Near Prashanth Theatre, Clock Tower, Secunderabad.

¶11

.. Respondent

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.17802 of 2014

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

The petitioner avers that he was granted Passport bearing No.J 3551454 on 08.03.2011. In the Passport issued to the petitioner, his date of birth was recorded as 05.06.1971, whereas the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 05.06.1973. Having realized that a wrong entry of date of birth is made in the passport, the petitioner claimed to have approached the respondent, but the same was not received. Hence, this writ petition.

¶17

2. From the averments made in the affidavit, it is seen that no application is submitted to the Passport authority for seeking correction of date of birth and straight away the writ petition is instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not say whether any such application is made. Thus, no mandamus can be issued even before an application is submitted. An action of the competent authority can be examined on exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only when in spite of the petitioner’s grievance raised before the competent authority, the competent authority has not acted upon the said grievance within the reasonable time. Thus, the writ

¶18

petition is pre-mature.

¶19

3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to file an application for seeking correction of date of birth. It is needless to observe that as and when such application is made, the same shall be processed in accordance with law by the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶20

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 1^st July, 2014 KL

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.17802 of 2014

¶23

Date: 1^st July, 2014

¶24

Mohammed Moiz Ahmed, v. The Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Moiz Ahmed, 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

Chinna Kadirappa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Vinukonda Vijayalaksluni Vs The Govt. of Telangana

The Gram Panchayat Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.P.Naga Lakshmamma, Vs The Government of A.P.

P.Saifuddin, Vs The Government of A.P.

M/ s.Boppana Civil Constructions, Vs The Visakhapatnam Port Trust