IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11393 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- IYLIN MARIA ANTONY, D/O.VARGHESE ANTONY, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, PURAKKAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. R1 & R2 BY SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11393/2010-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 05/01/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/05/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.4: CERTIFIED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DTD. 30/09/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. CHN/798/01/95 DTD. 17/03/2008 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF R.1. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 29/10/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. BY REGISTERED POST. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REMINDER DTD. 28/12/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. BY REGISTERED POST. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. CP0026409 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R.1. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR CARRYING OUT CHANGES IN THE EXISTING PASSPORT ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 11393 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the holder of Indian Passport No. F4421054. The original passport of the petitioner happened to be in the hands of one Mr. Vincent. According to the petitioner, the said Mr. Vincent filed applications before the Passport Officer forging the signature of the petitioner and putting a false thumb impression and got endorsements made in her passport adding a spouse name, apparently to make it appear that Mr. Vincent is her husband. Upon a complaint filed by the petitioner before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, an investigation was conducted by the Police and a Final Report has been laid before the court finding that the entries in the passport are made by forged signature and thumb impression of the petitioner. Petitioner submitted Exts.P2, P3 & P7 applications before the Passport Officer seeking deletion of the endorsements illegally made in the passport. But the same has been rejected by Ext.P9 order stating that the W.P.(C)No. 11393 of 2010 -2- petitioner may apply for a duplicate passport in continuation of the existing passport with a copy of the judgment regarding disposal of the cases pending before the court. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash Ext.P9 order as illegal and arbitrary. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or commanding the 1st respondent to allow Ext.P2, P3 and P7 applications submitted by the petitioner and delete the fraudulent entries made in her passport as additional entries of spouse name within a stipulated time period. 2. I have heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General also. The Passport Officer does not now dispute the fact that, the signature and thumb impression in the application pursuant to which the endorsement was made is not that of the petitioner. But they would submit that, since the passport office is handling so many applications for various purposes connected with passports, every day, it may not be possible for them to verify the signature and thumb impression in each application with reference to the original documents available. According to them, without W.P.(C)No. 11393 of 2010 -3- production of a court order they may not be able to make the correction. But when the court pointed out that, in so far as it is because of their mistake that the endorsement happened to be made illegally, after getting instructions, the learned Assistant Solicitor General would submit that, if the petitioner submits an application for a duplicate passport, the same would be issued to the petitioner without the offending endorsements. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall file an application before the 1st respondent seeking issue of a duplicate passport in the place of the original passport without the offending endorsements made at the instance of Mr. Vincent, within one month from the date of receipt of such application. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE The last paragraph of the judgment dated 16/06/2010 in W.P.(C) 11393/2010 is substituted as: “The petitioner shall file an application before the 1st W.P.(C)No. 11393 of 2010 -4- respondent seeking issue of a duplicate passport in the place of the original passport. The first respondent shall issue a duplicate passport without the offending endorsements made in the original passport, at the instance of Mr. Vinsent, within one month from the date of such application.“ And the name “Mr. Vincent” occurring in the 3rd, 4th and 8th lines of the first paragraph of the judgment is substituted by the name “Mr. Vinsent”. Vide order dated 30/06/2010 in I.A. 8688/2010 in WP (C) 11393/2010. sd/- Registrar (Judicial)