IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 11801 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 11th October, 2010. Amandeep Singh Bhatoa & Another Petitioners through Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Anjali Kukkar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioners seek a Mandamus to direct the Passport Authorities as well as the Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India to carry out necessary corrections in the Passport of petitioner No. 1 regarding place of his birth and to add his sur-name. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioner No. 1 holds an Indian Passport issued by the Regional Passport Officer at Chandigarh. His name as mentioned in the Passport is 'Amandeep Singh'. He has applied for the addition of his sur-name 'Bhatoa' also after his name 'Amandeep Singh'. He has also sought change of place of his birth from village 'Mullanpur Garibdas' to 'Chamkaur Sahib'. According to the petitioner, he was actually born in village Chamkaur Sahib as is evident from the birth certificate dated 10.11.2009 [Annexure P-5]. However, he got his schooling and passed the Matriculation examination from village Mullanpur Garibdas, due to which the place of his birth in the passport has been shown as village 'Mullanpur Garibdas'. The petitioner is also said to have got married to petitioner No. 2–a French nationalist. It is averred that since the petitioners want their marriage to be registered under the French law, followed by French citizenship for petitioner No.1 that the petitioners require the Passport of petitioner No. 1 with corrected place of his birth and addition of surname. In the reply/affidavit, the respondents have come up with the plea that since petitioner No. 1 is presently living in China, he is required to apply for the correction in his Passport through the Indian Embassy in China and if the said application is received through that channel, the same shall be processed in accordance with the Rules. On the other hand, further grievance of the petitioners is that the application form of petitioner No. 1 is required to be accompanied by an order to be passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and since the petitioners are presently living in China, it is very difficult to obtain such an order. The petitioners have also referred to a decision of the Delhi High Court in Pushpendra Singh Diwaniyan v Union of India & Ors., 2009[162] DLT, 602 wherein, after referring the Bombay High Court decision, it has been observed that the condition of acquiring a declaration from the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class is unwarranted as it would unnecessarily delay the adjudication of such like application and that the respondent Authorities can hold their own fact finding inquiry, if so required. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and being in respectful agreement with the observations made by the Delhi High court, I am of the considered view that it would be too cumbersome for the petitioners to visit India and obtain such a 'declaration'. In fact, the application to be submitted by petitioner No.1 can be forwarded and got verified through the police or any other official agency in India, if so required and thereafter the necessary correction in the Passport can be made by the respondents. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; with a direction that as soon as petitioner No.1 submits his application through the Indian Embassy at China without accompanied by a declaration by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, such an application shall be entertained and necessary correction shall be carried out in the Passport of petitioner No. 1, after holding a fact finding inquiry, if so advised. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date such an application along with a certified copy of this order is submitted. Disposed of. Dasti. October 11, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE