IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1668 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSE K. MATHEW, KIZHAKKEMURIYIL KALATHI, AYTHALA, RANNI PO PAZHAVANGADY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI. BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.1668 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was issued a passport bearing No.W552413. The validity of the said passport expired. Thereafter the petitioner applied for a fresh passport on 25th June, 2006 and according to him necessary fee also has been remitted. In the application so made, the date of birth indicated is different from what was indicated in the earlier passport. To substantiate the correctness of the date of birth declared in the application, petitioner had also produced Ext.P5, a declaratory order passed by the Munsiff Court, Ranni in O.S.No.336/08. Despite this, the Ist respondent issued Ext.P6, returning Ext.P5 and directed the petitioner to make a fresh application. It is in these circumstances challenging Ext.P6 the writ Petition has been filed,. 2. The standing counsel for the respondent was heard. The standing counsel does not dispute the competence of WP(c).No.1668/09 2 the first respondent to decide on the correctness of the date of birth declared by the petitioner. Since the claim made by the petitioner is substantiated by Ext.P5, there is no reason why the Ist respondent should have returned Ext.P5 under Ext.P6. Further, no reason what so ever has been stated in Ext.P6 itself to justify the action of the respondents. 3. Now that the Ist respondent himself is competent to decide on the application made, I direct that the petitioner shall produce Ext.P5 once again before the first respondent, in which event necessary orders on the application made by the petitioner shall be passed by the first respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.1668/09 3