IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38204 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SEGU NOORDEEN,S/O.KAMALUDEEN,AGED 41 YEARS,SALMA MANZIL,THONNALLOOR, PANDALAM, PIN 689 501, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, KAITHAMUKKU,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SHRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN, CGC FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 38204 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's grievance is regarding the refusal of the respondents in renewing his passport. According to the petitioner, he was initially issued a passport bearing No.B1894592, which was valid till 11/5/2010. It is stated that, he made an application for its renewal and that has now been declined. According to the petitioner, the refusal to renew the passport was on account of the reason that he had temporarily shifted his residence. It is with this allegation, seeking orders for the renewal of passport, the writ petition is filed. 2. However, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents points out that initially the passport of the petitioner was issued from Trichi. According to the learned counsel, the name of the petitioner as shown in his voter ID card, PAN card and Ration Card is different from what was shown in his passport. It is also stated that the residential address shown also is different. According to the learned counsel, on account of the above said reasons, when police verification report was obtained, WPC No. 38204/10 :2 : the same was adverse to the petitioner, and that, it was therefore that the renewal was refused by the respondents. However, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is only slight variation in the names as shown in the voter ID card and PAN card. According to him, the mistake in the ration card was corrected by Ext.P5 based on Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Village Officer. It is contended that documents explaining the alleged inconsistencies were produced. Therefore, it is contended that respondents ought not have denied the renewal of the passport. 3. Prima facie, going by voter ID card and PAN card, copies of which are Exts.P1 and P2 and the ration cards which are Exts.P3 and P5, there is difference in the name of the petitioner as compared to the entries in Ext.P6 passport. If that be so, passport authorities cannot be faulted for their refusal to renew the passport and that too when it is based on an adverse police report. Therefore, on the material available, this Court will not be justified in finding fault with the passport authorities. 4. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has an explanation for the inconsistencies, if the petitioner is in a position WPC No. 38204/10 :3 : to offer satisfactory explanation to the respondents, it is for them to consider the matter. 5. In that view of the mater, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation showing all the details and explaining the inconsistencies in his name and address, and if the 1st respondent is also satisfied about the explanation offered, he will call for a fresh police verification report and if the report so obtained is not adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner's request for renewal of the passport will be reconsidered. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp