IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 33221 of 2009(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- CHARUPURAYIDATHIL HASSAN KUTTY SHIBU, (C.H.SHIBU), AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN KUTTY, SHAN VILLA, PARAYAMKULAM, CHARUMMOOD P.O., NOORANAD VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.S.ABHILASH, MR.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN. R1 & R2 BY MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.33221/2009-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PASSPORT HAVING NO.A9864731 ISSUED BY THE EMBASSY OF INDIA RIYADH. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE MADHYAMAM DAILY DTD. 24/07/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, NOORANAD DTD. 11/08/2009. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE SHOWING THE DATE OF BIRTH AS 30/05/1972. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.33221 of 2009-W - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an applicant for a fresh passport with the correct date of birth as 30.5.1972. Herein, the petitioner was issued a passport on 31.12.1001 having No.K376557. It was renewed on 24.10.2001 by the Embassy of India, Riyadh wherein he was working and the said passport was valid upto 23.10.2011. A copy of the same has been produced as as Ext.P1. 2. During a travel after he returned to India, he lost his passport on 15.7.2009. Immediately he published an advertisement in a newspaper about the loss of the passport, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. A complaint also made before the Sub Inspector of Police, Nooranad in the matter. Ext.P4 is the application submitted by the petitioner showing the date of birth as 30.5.1972. According to the petitioner, the date shown as 30.5.1966 in the earlier passport is only a clerical mistake and is not supported by any document. Ext.P5 is the school leaving certificate produced by him along with Ext.P4 in support of the correct date of birth. The application stands rejected directing him to produce a declaratory order wpc33221 /2009 2 from a court and it is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been iled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a declaratory order from court is not required in a case like this. Such a declaration is required only if there is a conflict between two sets of documents, i.e. school records and the documents regarding the entry of date of birth from local authorities which is clear from para 2 of Ext.R2(B) guidelines in force. Herein, the school leaving certificate is the authentic document. There is no contra document to dispute the entry. It is therefore submitted that the respondents are empowered to issue the passport with the date of birth contained in the school leaving certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Aboo v. Regional Passport Officer (2008 (1) KLT 992) in support of the above plea that school leaving certificate can be relied upon in the absence of any contra evidence. 4. The respondents, in their statement, submits that a declaratory order is required. Ext.R2(A) is the circular dated 29.10.2007. Clauses (a) to (d) of the said circular contains different provisions relating to correction of date of birth/place of birth in the passport. Clause (a) empowers the wpc33221 /2009 3 authority to correct the entry in a case where due to clerical or technical mistake, the entry in the passport has to be corrected. There is no need for a declaratory order in such cases. After perusing the documents produced at the time of issuance of passport, the passport issuing authority can correct the same. Clause (d) does not apply to the facts of this case. It is clause © which is relied upon by the respondents. That relates to a case where the files have already been destroyed and the authority can correct the entry with regard to the date of birth without a court order, if the correction is only in months (not more than two years) and the applicant provides satisfactory explanation also. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two years period provided in para © cannot be a bar in a case like this. The power is already there with the authority to consider all aspects. As the declaratory order from the court is not required and as clause (a) does not apply to the facts of this case, it is submitted that para © alone can apply in the facts of this case. 5. In the decision in Aboo's case (2008 (1) KLT 992), in para 12 it was observed that “the passport issuing authority is free to reconsider the claim of the petitioner therein with reference to the extract of admission register of the Government High School, Pattikad and carry out the wpc33221 /2009 4 necessary rectifications regarding the date of birth of the petitioner, in case such a course is possible in the light of the circular referred to above. If, however, that authority finds it difficult to accept the said certificate, it shall refer the petitioner to a competent civil court for getting a declaratory order regarding the date of birth.” 6. Herein, no dispute has been raised to the effect that the document Ext.P5 is unacceptable to the respondents for any reason. Ext.P5 is the copy of the school leaving certificate with the photo of the petitioner. Therein, the date of birth is recorded as 30.5.1972. It is evident that the same is carried from the admission register maintained in the school. There is no other document contrary to the same also. Therefore, it is clear that the entry regarding the date of birth as contained in the school leaving certificate is acceptable. Apart from that, a declaratory order from the court is required only if there is conflict between the supporting document issued by the competent authority, viz. the school/educational authority and the other one issued by the municipal authorities. Here, the said contingency does not arise. Therefore, the stand of the respondents that the petitioner has to get a declaratory order from court, is not correct. 7. What is pointed out by the learned Asst. Solicitor General wpc33221 /2009 5 appearing for the respondents is that herein the difference is more than two years and therefore the respondents cannot do anything in the matter. True that in clause © of Ext.P1 such a stipulation is there. Evidently, it is not a period of limitation. But it is only a period fixed for administrative convenience of the respondents. That will not deprive the authorities the power to correct the entry, especially in the light of clause (a) of Ext.R1 (A). Clause (a) deals with correction of clerical/technical mistakes in the entry. Of course, in such circumstances, the documents produced at the time of issuance of earlier passport have to be verified. Herein, going by the pleadings, the entry in the earlier passport was made not on the basis of any authentic document. Therefore, what is required to be done is to exercise the discretion by perusing the school leaving certificate, and after satisfying about the identity of the petitioner. The authority is not denuded of such power to correct the entry in such circumstances. 8. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the application for issuance of passport in the light of Ext.P5 and in the light of the findings rendered above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If further documents are required, the second respondent will be free to direct the petitioner to wpc33221 /2009 6 produce the same either with regard to the proof of identity or for other matters. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/