IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31630 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LIJI JOSE, W/O. JOSE K.L., BIJI BHAVAN POOZHIKADU, KUDASSANAD, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE PASSPORT OFFICER TRIVANDRUM. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,NEW DELHI. ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR ADV. SRI.SUNNY XAVIER, ACGSC FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.31630 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by the reluctance on the part of the respondents in considering her application for correcting the name of her husband in Exhibit P1 passport. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents1 and 2. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the same reads as follows. “4. As per Passport Manual the Passport Issuing Authorities function with quasi judicial powers in passport matters, any correction or amendment of a particulars on a passport, which was already declared and found correct by the petitioner as well as the verifying authorities could be possible only if the petitioner is able to convince with documentary evidence ie. Marriage Certificate, Birth Certificate of the child, Passport of the spouse and his school certificate and sworn affidavit. Since the petitioner has not approached the 1st respondent along with these documents the case of the petitioner could not be considered. It is to be noted that the petitioner had declared the name of her husband as Thomas. A clear police report corroborating the personal particulars and description given in her application for passport was also received earlier and based on the said report the W.P ( C) No.31630 of 2008 2 passport was issued to her. 5. In view of all the above facts the petition is devoid of any merits and is therefore unsustainable. However the respondent is ready to consider if the petitioner applies for correction of her spouses name along with the necessary documentary evidence.” 2. The above stand taken by the respondents is recorded. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders and do the needful on the petitioner’s application for correcting the name of her husband in the passport, without further delay, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.31630 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.31630 of 2008 4