IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 16294 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO 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 NIRMALABEN NAGINBHAI Versus REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 16294 of 2004 MR CA BHAKTA for Petitioner No. 1 MR MA SHAIKH, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date of decision: 28/12/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT #. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent passport authority to make necessary rectification in the date of birth mentioned in the passport as stated in the Birth Certificate issued by the competent authority under the provisions of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969, as 19th October 1955 instead of 15th October 1955 or to issue a fresh passport to the petitioner by mentioning the correct birth date of the petitioner as 19th October 1955 as mentioned in the certificate issued by the competent authority. #. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that through inadvertence petitioner's date of birth is wrongly mentioned in the passport as 15th October 1955 instead of 19th October 1955 and the respondent authority has refused to entertain his request to correct the said mistake. #. Shri MA Shaikh, learned Addl. Central Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent authority has submitted that only on the basis of the material given by the petitioner the date of birth was recorded in the passport. He has further submitted that no change in the passport is effected, but for making any correction in the passport, a new passport is normally issued by the authority with correct details if the authority is satisfied with the genuineness of the data to be corrected. He further submitted that certificate which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure `C' to the petition is not the certificate issued by the competent authority under Section 12/17 of the Birth and Death Registration Act. He submitted that on production of the certificate issued by the competent authority, necessary correction can be made. #. Having heard the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances and also the material placed on record and on production of the certificate issued by the competent authority under Section 12 and 17 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, the respondent is directed to look into the case of the petitioner on the basis of the evidence already adduced or which may be adduced by the petitioner to correct the date of birth as mentioned above. The respondent shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law after considering the relevant evidence adduced before him and shall pass an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible. #. As the respondent authority will have to undertake the exercise of scrutinizing the case of the petitioner afresh because of the default committed by the petitioner in not placing correct facts at an earlier point of time, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent authority by way of costs. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute . Direct service is permitted. (M.R.Shah,J) (pathan)