IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19847 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ELIYOTT SREEDHARAN, "CHYTHANYA", THAMARAMKULANGARA, P.O.EDAT, PAYYANNUR (VIA), KANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI SRI.ROY THOMAS (MUVATTUPUZHA) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE.PIN- 673 001. * ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED ADDL.R2: UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. * ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/11/2010 IN IA 15462/2010 R1& R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 19847/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE RELEVENT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE INFORMATION BOOK-LET ISSUED WITH THE PASSPORT BY THE RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF ADMISSION REGISTER ISSUED BY THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PAYYANNUR,KANNUR DISTRICT. P4 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS. P6 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.56/2009 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR. P7 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN THE ABOVE PLAINT. P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMEMT DATED 11/3/2010 IN WP(C) NO. 33498/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.19847 of 2010-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein has approached this Court complaining against the refusal of the first respondent to accept the application for change of date of birth in the passport. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. The essential facts for the disposal of the writ petition are the following: The petitioner is the holder of an Indian Passport No.E 6601223 which was renewed on 14.3.2004 by the Embassy of India, Muscat. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the relevant page of the passport. The date of birth mentioned in the passport is 3.11.1947, whereas his actual date of birth is claimed to be 30.11.1953. Ext.P3 is the copy of the extract of admission register. 4. It is pointed out that even though the petitioner approached the first respondent, it was insisted that the petitioner should get a declaration from a court of law, viz. the civil court. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the wpc 19847/2010 2 wrong entry in the passport happened due to a mistake inadvertently made by the person who filled up the application. Exts.P4 and P5 are copies of circulars governing the correction of entries in passports. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not the requirement that the party should obtain a declaration from a civil court under all circumstances. According to him, there is no conflict of the entry with respect to any other document. Herein, the main document relied upon by the petitioner is Ext.P3 and it is therefore pointed out that going by the relevant clause in Ext.P4, being a clerical mistake, the first respondent is empowered to correct the same and issue a fresh corrected passport. 5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit explaining various reasons for non acceptance of the application of the petitioner. Reliance is placed on various judgments of this Court and of the other High Courts. In para 6 it is mentioned that the petitioner has not disclosed the details of the passports issued to him prior to 3.5.1994. It is also mentioned that the petitioner has kept quiet for decades together and therefore a declaration from a civil court ought to have been obtained., and the extract of the Admission Register is only of recent origin. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of this Court produced as Ext.P8 wherein, after examining various contentions and wpc 19847/2010 3 the conditions stipulated in the circulars, this Court held that “a declaration from a Court is required in a case where the initial entry has been made on the basis of a supportive document issued by one competent authority, i.e. school/educational authority and the applicant subsequently requests for a change on the basis of a certificate issued by another competent authority, i.e. Municipal authorities, etc. resulting in conflict documents for valid proof.” That was also a case where reliance was placed only on one document, i.e. copy of the admission register. With regard to the interpretation of clause © of Ext.P4 herein, this Court took the view that the period of two years is prescribed evidently for the administrative convenience and that does not mean that in other cases there is a total bar in exercising the power. 7. Learned Asst. Solicitor General submitted that the passport was issued 20 years back and therefore the original records may not b available now for verification. In Ext.P8 judgment this Court directed the petitioner therein that he will have to produce proof of identity by producing electoral identity card or any other authentic records and if all such documents are produced, the respondent therein was directed to peruse the same for effecting correction as requested for by the petitioner therein and on being satisfied about the correctness of the entry. wpc 19847/2010 4 8. Herein also, the same course can be adopted, but so far the application has not been received. Therefore, it is upto the petitioner to file a proper application along with a copy of this judgment within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, before the first respondent. It is open to the petitioner to produce all documents he relies upon, as well as relevant documents like Electoral identity card to prove his identity. Thereafter, the first respondent will verify the same and find out whether the correction is only a clerical one or not and an appropriate decision will be taken after due enquiry with regard to the correction sought for and it will be communicated to the petitioner within a further period of three months. The petitioner will produce the current passport along with the application. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/