IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14830 of 2009 Between: Miss. Payardha Rumitha, D/o. P.Purushotham Das R/o. H.No. 190/33, Bhasker Rao Nagar, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Near Clock Tower, Secunderabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in not correcting the Petitioner's date of birth as 20-7-1984 in place of 20-5-1984 erroneously entered into the Passport bearing E.No. 4558031, dated: 13-6-2003 is illegal, arbitrary, and null and viod and against the Principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondent to correct the date of birth of Petitioner in Passport bearing No. 4558031, dated: 13-6-2003 as 20-7-1984 in the place of 20-5-1984 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.PRADEEP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Central Government. In this Writ Petition the petitioner seeks writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not correcting her date of birth as 20-07-1984 in place of 20- 05-1984 as entered in her passport bearing E.No.4558031, dated 13-06-2003, as illegal and arbitrary. It is a case of the petitioner that her correct date of birth is 20-07-1984, but while issuing passport, there was a mistake in entry mentioning her date of birth as 20-05- 1984. It is submitted that by enclosing the necessary educational certificates, the petitioner submitted representation, dated 08-07-2009, but the same is not being considered for correction. When the matter is called, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent that in identical circumstances when the applicant is able to file proof of correct date of birth, this Court in Durgempudi Venkata Raghava Vs. Pass Port Officer, Hyderabad [1] granted directions to consider the case of the petitioner for correction of date of birth. It is submitted that though the petitioner seeks directions for correction in view of the judgment of this Court in Durgempudi Venkata Raghava’s case, this Court cannot order the correction straightaway. It is for the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner, having regard to the documents to be produced by her along with the application. As much as the petitioner has already approached the respondent and filed application dated 08-07-2009 and it is stated that it is pending for consideration, I dispose of this Writ Petition directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner taking into account the documentary evidence filed by her in proof of her claim for correction of date of birth. If the documents are not filed, it is open for the petitioner to file the same within a period of four weeks from today. On filing such documents, the respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner and after taking appropriate steps, the same shall be communicate to the petitioner within two weeks from today. Subject to above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 24th July, 2009. skmr [1] 2005 (1) ALD 710