IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 17984 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALIYAR K.M., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. MR.MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT VALIYA PARAMBIL HOUSE, PEZHAKKEPPALLY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-686 674. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.K.H.ASIF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, COCHIN PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.17984 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner obtained a passport. In that passport, his date of birth was entered as 11.6.1956. But, subsequently, he obtained a certified copy of the school admission register from the school, where he studied, which is produced as Ext.P2, wherein his date of birth is shown as 10.11.1952. In view of the discrepancy between the two records relating to him, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for reissue of the passport with the correct date of birth. The petitioner's grievance is that the same is not being considered by the 2nd respondent on the ground that he has to obtain a declaratory order from the concerned civil court. 2. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that in view of the difference of four years between the two dates of birth, unless the petitioner produces an order from the concerned civil court, the date of birth cannot be corrected. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The question of insisting on a declaration by the civil court arises only when the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his claim for correction of date of birth are vague or unreliable. But w.p.c.17984/2010 2 here the petitioner has produced Ext.P2 copy of the extract from the admission register of the school, where he studied. Therefore, unless the 2nd respondent comes to a finding that Ext.P2 is not reliable, I do not think that the 2nd respondent can insist on a declaration by the court in respect of the date of birth of the petitioner. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is bound to consider the matter in the light of Ext.P2. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for reissue of the passport with correct date of birth as claimed by the petitioner in the light of Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce the original of Ext.P2 before the 2nd respondent for the purpose. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge