Disposed

Mohammed Omer and another v. The Regional Passport Office

Telangana HC5 Aug 2021WP/5707/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent to correct the date of birth in the petitioner's passport. The Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage directing the petitioner to approach the Indian Embassy in Kuwait for the correction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the Indian Embassy in Kuwait to seek correction of the date of birth in the passport within two weeks.

Mohammed Omer and another Vs The Regional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5707 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

lt/ohammed Omer, S/o. Mohammed Yousuf Aged about 5lyears Occ.Private Service (Abroad) Fi"/o H.No.8-1-4021137, Gulshan Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

¶9

Rep. by GPA Holder, Anees Khatoon W/o.^[,4ohammed Omer Aged about³⁹ years Occ. Housewife Ri/o. H. No.8-1-4021137 , Gulshan Colony, Tolichowki, HYderabad

¶10

...PETrroNERs

¶11

AND

¶12

The Regional Passport Office, Shivajinagar, Secunderabad, Telangana^State.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be pleased} to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more^{particularlyone in the nature} of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent^{not issuing passport} with correction of the date of birth as^per the SSC Certificate^{2810211969 instead of} 2BtO2l1S62 in File No. HYD/843/28(63)POL|LC|2O2O^{dated05/01/2021 as is illegal,} arbitrary unjust and against the Principle of Nature of^{Justice and violationof Article} 14, 21 and 300-A and consequently to direct the^{Respondent to issue the passpod} with the correction of the date of birlh as^per the SSC^{Certificate28102/1969 instead} of 2810211962 in File No. HYD/843/28(63)POL|LC|202O^{daled 0510112021.}

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in supiport of the^{petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto issue} the passport with the correction, of the date of^{birth as per the SSC Certificate} 281O2t1969 instead of 2810211962 in File^{No. HYD/843/28(63)POL/LC/2020dated} 0510112021 .

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MIRZA MAHMOOD ALIBAIG

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.^RAMESHREDDY,

¶19

S.C. FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLB SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAFI SHAVILI

¶22

W.P.No.5707 of 2021

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the aclmission stage with the consent of both the parties.

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not issuing passporl with correction of the date of birth as dt.28-02-196) instead of 28-02-1962 based on the SSC Certificate, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶26

I learc] Sri N,{irza Mahr.nood Alibaig, learn,:d counsel for tlre petitior.rer ancl Srj V.llan.resh Reddy, learncd Star dir.rg Counsel lbl Centlal Goven'irncnt, appearing tbr the responclent.

¶27

It has been contended by the petition,)r that he 1S working in Kuwait and his grievance is that his date of birth has been incorrectly entered in the passport as 28-02-1962 instead of 28-02-1969 and in support of his contention, he has produced his S.S.C. Certificate. lle also made a representation before the respondent to that el-fect. lherefore, learned corLnsel for the petitioner has contended that appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition directing the respondents to correct the date of birth in the passport as per S.S.C. cenificate.

¶28

Learned Standing Counsel for the rer;pondent has contendcd that on 12-01-02021, the petitioner was advised ro visit

¶29

\,^p \o a?0, ,rl10r I

¶30

Indian Embassy in any day from Thursday to Sunday,^{but so far, the} petitioner has not approached the Indian Embassy at Kuwait. Therefore, if the petitioner approaches the Indian Embassy^at Kuwait, the Indian Embassy would consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with lau'.

¶31

Having regard to the rival subrnissions made^{b,v the} parties, this Cout is of the considered vierv that the this^{Writ Petition} can be disposed ol directing the^petitioner to^{approach the [ndian} Embassy at Kllwait requesting to correct the^date of^{birrh in the} passpoft in accordance with the relevant records within two^weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order^{and upon such} representation is being received, the Indian^{Ernbassy,Kuwait,will} consider the case of the petitioner and^{pass appropriateorders in} another eight weeks thereafter.

¶32

With these observations, the Writ Petition^{is disposed}

¶33

of. No costs.

¶34

As^.a sequel, the miscellaneous^{petitions pending,if any,}

¶35

shall starrd closed.

¶36

SD/.N.CHANDRA^{SEKHAR RAO} ASSISTANT RRGISTRAR //'RUE coPY/' .ecrror.tVrrcen

¶37

¶38

To 1 The Reoional Passport Office,^{Shivajinagar, Secunderabad, TelanganaState} One CCto Sri l\iliza^{Mahmood Alibaig, Advocate} [OPUCI , o;; cc io SriV.^{Ramesh iJidv, s.i ioiCenGt'cou"rhment[oPUC]} 4 Two CD Copies. 5 One Spare Copy. MP \ k

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510812021

ORDER

WP.No.5707 of 202'l

BL STAr€ o
,t
c)
ot)t) 16 AUGzSel r\ tt
,,,, !
\ * O;gn+iC .t

¶44

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶45

ao
\b

Mohammed Omer and another v. The Regional Passport Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Omer and another v. The Regional Passport Office

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

A.Rajanna, Adilabad Dist. and 7 Others Vs Deccan Grameena Bank, Hyd

Kotamma and Another, Vs the Dy. Secy., Home Affairs, New Delhi, and 3 Others

Muppidi Ananth Reddy Vs The Union of India

Cherabuddi Education Society, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad

Ragam Upender Vs The Government of India

Valishetti Shankaraiah, Vs Valishetti Narsimha