IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14669 of 2008 Between: Kilari Mathew Samuel S/o.Kilari David Raju R/o.Plot # 1096 Road # 41,Near Peddamma Temple Jubilee Hills,Hyderabad-33 ..... PETITIONER AND Regional Passport Officer,Secunderabad Office AT R.P.Road, Secunderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to rectify the mistake in the petitioner passport bearing No.E 8080798 on 12.3.2004 with regard to the date of birth shown as 7.5.1989 instead of 7.5.1990 as per the Central Board of Secondary Education Marks statement dated 27.5.2006 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education Delhi. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.ISAAC Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Kilari Mathew Samuel assailing the action of the Regional Passport Oﬃcer, Secunderabad-respondent in not considering his application for rectiﬁcation of date of birth in his passport bearing No.E8080798, dated 12.03.2004. 2. The petitioner applied for passport in the year 2004. The respondent issued passport to the petitioner on 12.03.2004. His date of birth in the passport has been mentioned as 07.05.1989. He came to know that his date of birth in the passport has been entered wrongly. According to him, his correct date of birth is 07.05.1990. He approached the respondent for correction of his date of birth in the passport. The respondent refused to entertain his request. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Notice before admission has been ordered on 17.07.2008. Despite notice being served on the respondent, he did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.21035 of 2007 (Syed Khundmeer v. Regional Passport Oﬃcer, Secunderabad) . Therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the respondent to entertain the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the Circular dated 18.04.2001 issued by the Ministry of External Aﬀairs, Government of India. 6. This Court in Durgempudi Venkata Raghava v. Passport Oﬃcer, Ministry of External Aﬀairs, Passport Office, Hyderabad [1] observed at paras 9 to 14 as hereunder : “Placing reliance on the clariﬁcation issued on the aforesaid Circular, Writ Petition No.8533 of 2004, was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner along with the Secondary School Certiﬁcate issued by Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh and pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. It is no doubt true that the present Writ Petition was ﬁled in the year 1997 and the Government under Ministry of External Aﬀairs issued the Circular referred to supra on 18-4-2001. As can be seen from the material available on record, the certiﬁcates which had been produced before this Court, it is clear that it is only a bona ﬁde mistake which had crept in. Apart from this aspect of the matter, no counter aﬃdavit had been ﬁled denying the speciﬁc averment made in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the Writ Petition that along with the application form for passport, the Travel Agent also enclosed copies of S.S.C. certiﬁcate, Intermediate certiﬁcate and also Degree certiﬁcate. Therefore, it is evident that without verifying the date of, the respondent authority just took the date of birth as ﬁlled up in the application form and issued the passport. Hence, it is needless to say that it is only a bona fide mistake. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government, no doubt submitted that in such a situation, if the passport was issued prior to the said circular it would be proper to give an opportunity to the writ petitioner to ﬁle fresh application for issuance of passport to the competent authority. In the light of the facts and circumstances, especially in view of Clause (a) of the Circular, dated 18-4-2001 referred to supra and also in view of the fact that all these copies of documents also had been produced at the time of ﬁling of the application form but a bona ﬁde mistake had crept in, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions. The petitioner shall ﬁle fresh application enclosing all the copies of certiﬁcates, which are being relied upon by him, before the respondent within a period of one month from today and the respondent is directed to take into consideration of the certiﬁcates and after verifying the same, pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of one month thereafter...” 7. In view of the Circular dated 18.04.2001 issued by the Ministry of External Aﬀairs, Government of India and also in the light of the decision referred to supra, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondent to receive the application of the petitioner along with necessary documents if any enclosed for correction of the date of birth and dispose of the same keeping in view the guidelines issued in the Circular referred to supra, within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:29th August, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} [1] 2005(1) ALT 751