Disposed

Syed Zaker v. Union of India

Telangana HC19 Aug 2023WP/19830/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of this writ petition praying for correction of date of birth in petitioner's passport. Court directed Passport Officer to consider correction based on submission documents within four weeks without applying delay or circular restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's representation to correct date of birth within four weeks of receipt, ignoring delay and circular guidelines.

Syed Zaker Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132s2 |

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

SATURDAY, THE^{NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITI o^{N NO:19830OF 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sved Zaker,^{S/o Syed lbrahim, aged about 49 years, presentlyresidin} g at PepsiCo lniernational^{Level4, Emaar Square Building-2 Downtown Dubai,rep} . by his SPA SaveeO Ain^{Mohammeds/o MohammedBin Salamaged 63 years' r} /o.H.No.2311839/A,^{MoghalpuraCharminar, Hyderabad'}

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

AN D 1 Union of^{lndia, rep. by its Secretary Ministryof ExternalAffairs'New Delhi'} 2 The Passport^{Officer, Regional PassportOffice, Hyderabad'}

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith, the Highcourt may be} .i""""0 to issue^{an appropriate Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in} of Writ of Mandamus,^{declaring the inactionOf the 2nd respondentin} it " "rtr* irring it.p"^{to correct the year of the date of birth of the petitioner herein in his} No. t |-OSSSZ1 Z as 1979^{insteadof 1974 inspiteof the} i;r.."p*t^' *riiiJn ,"pr"""ntation^{dated 23-06-2023,as being illegal, arbitrary' unjust and} u nlonstitutional^{and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to correct the year} of the date of^{birth of the petitioner hereinin his passport'}

¶13

l.A.NO:'t o F 2023

¶14

petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to} Jir."i ir-," znO^{respondent herein to forthwith correctthe year of date of birth. of} tne petitioner in his^{passport No. N-0593217 as 1974 insteadof 1979,pending} disposal of the main^{writ petition.}

¶15

Counsel tor the^{Petitioner: Sri.MohammedNawaz HyderAli}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents^{: Sri.B.Raghavendra}

¶17

The Court made the following^{Order :-}

¶18

¶19

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶20

WRIT PETITION o.19830 0F 2lJ23

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Mr.Mohammed Nawaz Hyder Ali, learned counsel for the^petitioner and Mr.B.Raghavendra,^learned counsel for the respondents.

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief :

¶24

"To issue an appropriate Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in taking steps to correct the^year of the date of birth of the petitioner herein in his Passport No. N 0593217 as 1979 instead of 1974 in spite of the written representation dated 23.06.2023 as being illegal arbitrary unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to correct the year of the date of birth of the petitioner herein in his passport and to grant pass."

¶25

The counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and

¶26

2, in particular, paras 4 and 5 reads as under:

¶27

"4. I submit that the original passport of the petitioner was issued on 14.11.2005 with validity up to 13.11.2015 and was issued by the embassy of Saudi Arabia. In continuation, the petitioner is issued with his renewed

¶28

¶29

passport bearing number N0593217 dated 09.12.2015 valid up to 08.12.2025 by the embassy of India at Saudi Arabaia. I further submit that in both the passports, the date of birth of the petitioner was cautiously mentioned as 02.02.1974 that it shows his intention and negligence, which is bad in law for want of date of birth changed as 02.02.1979 is malicious or to get his age to be reduced or correction in the passport that after approx 17 years its an huge gap or knowingly suppressed the facts by the petitioner not acceptable in the eye of law and which is not possible to rectify or if any corrections in the issued passport as per the passport Guidelines issued by the Ministry of External Affairs O.M.No.VIl4O1l 2l5l20ol date 22-09-20165, date of birth on the passport cannot be changed after 5 years of being issued the passport. (Annx-IV).

¶30

Further, it has been noted from the records that the petitioner has not yet applied for renewal of his Passport either in India or Abroad with his change in date of birth. When the oetitioner submits his aoolicataon at anv of the PassDort offices, after acceDtinq the aoolication, a new file number will be oenerated in the svstem which can be accessed bv all the Passport Offices over the^qlobe,"

¶31

This Court on 21.04.2023 dealing with delay in identical circumstances passed orders in W.P.No.11323 of 2023, in particular, paras 4 and 5 observing as under:

¶32

! \

¶33

On consideration of the submissions of^the parties and Circulars/Office Memorandums, this Court vide order, in W.P.No.13635 of 2022, directed the passport authorities to consider the^request made by the petitioner therein seeking^correctionof date of birth basing on the SSC marks^memo, without reference to the said circular, even after five (5) years. In the present case also, in proof of correct date of birth, the^petitioner has filed^SSC marks memo and also birth certificate issued by the GHMC. Therefore, in this case^just because there^is delay, the respondents cannot refuse to correct the date of birth of the petitioner. Thus, impugned order, dated 26.O4.2022 is not on consideration of the said aspects and it is liable to be set aside, accordingly the same is set aside.

¶34

Accordingly, the writ^petition is disposed of, directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the request made by the petitioner seeking correction of date of birth and also copy of SSC marks memo and birth certificate issued by GHMC and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall complete the aforesaid exercise without reference to the delay as expeditiously as possible preferably within a^period of eight (B) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's

¶36

¶37

-ij]}

¶38

representation dated 23.06.2023 pursuant to the request made by the petitioner to correct the year of date of birth of the petitioner in Passport No.N-O593217 as Lg79 instead ot L974 within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receapt of copy of the order duly communacating the decision to the petitioner without reference to delay and also the circular instructions dated 22.O9.2016.

¶39

M i s ce I I a n e o u s^p e t i t i o n s, i f a n y,^p e n d i n S r h u I l r"tg,ll.r..8.rr""ha oo ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEcfloN 6Lrrcen

1.. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 2.^'The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri.Mohammed Nawaz Hyder Ali, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri.B.Raghavendra, Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

Two CD Copies

SA GJP \ _-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910812023

ORDER

WP.No.19830 of 2023

1 e STArE o ,s
(
z
.!
co O$ SEP M
t
t oES eal C

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶52

WITHOUT COSTS.

Syed Zaker v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Zaker v. Union of India

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

Kasturi Lakshmareddy Vs The State of Telangana

Matam Eshwaraiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sudireddy Vijaya Laxmi, Vs The State of Telangana.

M/s. Jeevaka Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission

Mohd Akber Vs Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Ravula Sahadev Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.