HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28173 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was issued a passport on 24.03.1999 by the office of the respondent. It was valid for a period of 10 years up to 23.03.2009. The petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the passport. His grievance is that the respondent is not renewing the passport by raising certain untenable grounds. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Even from the averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, and the documents filed by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the passport with vague and uncertain information. Clause 5 of the prescribed form deals with the place of birth. In this, the applicant has to mention the Village/Town, District, State, Country with documentary proof. When such is the requirement under Clause 5, the petitioner got typed “Secunderabad Ranga Reddy”. Secunderabad can be described as town, whereas Ranga Reddy is a district. Secunderabad is not part of Ranga Reddy District. The particulars to be mentioned in Clause 5 are not at all mentioned properly and what all stated itself was contradictory. The correspondence is said to have ensued thereafter that the application is defective. There is hardly anything the respondent can do about it. Even now, the petitioner has to make an application with correct particulars with proof. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to file fresh application with correct and proper particulars. It is needless to observe that the respondent shall process such an application, in accordance with law, as and when it is presented. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 29th December 2009 dr