IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 16956 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- PATEL NUPENKUMAR RAJNIBHAI S/O.PATEL RAJNIBHAI ISHWARBHAI Versus UNION OF INDIA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 16956 of 2003 MR PRADEEP PATEL for Petitioner No. 1 MR DN PATEL WITH MR. KRUNAL PANDYA for Respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date of decision: 24/12/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. Rule. Mr. Krunal Pandya learned counsel appearing for Mr. D.N. Patel learned Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel waives formal service of Rule on behalf of respondents. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. By means of filing this petition the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for appropriate writ, direction or order in the terms of 12. a. of the petition. 4. I would like to quote the relevant prayer made in para 12. a. of the petition. "Your lordship be pleased to issue a writ of mendemus or any other appropriate writ order of direction directing the second respondent to issue Passport in the name of the petitioner in accordance with law on the basis of his correct Date of Birth & Place of Birth 16.08.1980 BORSAD, TAL. BORSAD, DIST. ANAND, GUJARAT STATE as recorded in the Birth Certificate issued by the SUB REGISTRAR BIRTH-DEATH BORSAD NAGARPALIKA BORSAD, TAL. BORSAD, DIST. ANAND at ANNEXURE "B"." 5. It is contended that the petitioner had applied for passport which was issued by the respondent authority on 17-7-2001 bearing No. A 9720677. In the said passport the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 16-8-1983 and place of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as Borsad, Anand, Guj. Ahmedabad. 6. According to the petitioner, his real date of birth is 16-8-1980 and birth of place is Borsad, Tal. Borsad, Dist. Anand Gujarat State. In fact, he is in possession of the birth certificate issued by the authority, which bears the correct birth date and birth place of the petitioner as 16-08-1980 Borsad, Tal. Borsad, Dist.Anand, Gujarat State. The error has been cropped up because of the date reflected in the school leaving certificate. The birth date of the petitioner mentioned in the school leaving certificate is incorrect and therefore, the passport authorities, according to the petitioner, may be directed to issue fresh passport mentioning the date of birth and place of birth of the petitioner as per the certificate issued by the authority from the Register maintained under the statute, viz. Birth & Death Registration Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder. 7. In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to make representation before the passport authorities with relevant documents requesting the passport authorities to issue new passport mentioning the correct date of birth and place of birth of the petitioner. 8. On receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the passport authorities are directed to decide the said representation, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law and issue fresh passport to the petitioner showing the correct date of birth and place of birth of the petitioner, as mentioned in the certificate issued by the authority under Birth & Death Registration Act, 1969. 9. Before parting, I would like to mention here that this contingency has arisen because of the fault committed by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay cost to the respondent authorities which is quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) with the passport authorities. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. D.S. is permitted. (C.K. Buch, J.) /JVSatwara/