IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18509 of 2008 Between: Choppala Ravi Kumar S/o.Ch Victor, aged about 31 year, R/o: 14-10/B, Gondi village &P.O. Sakhinetipalli Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Passport Officer Regional Passport Officer Kummariguda Near Clock Tower Secunderabad-500003 2 The Regional Passport Officer Regional Passport Office Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the request of the petitioner for correction of date birth as 04-02-1976 instead of 04-02-1970 as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the circular dt 18-04-2001 issued by the Govt of India Ministry of External Aﬀairs and consequently direct the respondent to eﬀect correction of the date of birth to the petitioner as 04-02-1976 instead of 04-02-1970 in the passport bearing No.E7848760 dt.23- 03-2004 issued by the respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.R.SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 18509 OF 12008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by Choppala Ravi Kumar assailing the inaction of the respondents in considering his application for correction of date of birth in the passport bearing No.E-7848760, dated 20-3-2004. 2. The petitioner is holding passport bearing No. Q800338, dated 11-2-1994 corresponding to new passport No. E7848760. He submitted representation to the respondents for correction of his date of birth in the passport. His representation remained unattended. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Notice before admission has been ordered on 26-8-2008. Despite notice being served on the respondents, they do not choose to appear either in person or through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 5. I n Ali Imran Vs. Regional Passport Oﬃcer, Secunderabad[1], learned Single Judge of this Court considered the circular dated 18-4-2001 issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of External Aﬀairs pursuant to the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Writ Petition No. 1072 of 2000. The instructions/clariﬁcations issued in the said Circular read as sunder: (a) Where an applicant is seeking rectiﬁcation/correction of a mistake in the entry on date of birth/ place of birth in the passport, PIA (Passport Issuing Authority) may after verifying/satisfying himself, aﬀect the correction treating the same as a technical correction. There is no need for a declaratory order in such cases. (b) Where a competent authority issuing a birth certiﬁcate or an educational board registering a date of birth along with place of birth as valid were to issue any correction or amendment, PIA may eﬀect the necessary amendment in the passport without insisting on a Court Order. As per the provision of section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1997, a competent authority issuing a certiﬁcate could also make necessary amendments to the same. (c) 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 resulting in conﬂicting sources of valid proof, the PIA should direct the applicant to obtain a civil order from a competent Court of jurisdiction, certifying the valid date of birth/place of birth.” 6. In this case, the petitioner claims that he produced Secondary School Certiﬁcate to prove his date of birth as 4-2- 1976. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is well supported and squarely falls in clause (a) of the Circular dated 18-4-2001. 7. Following the judgment of this Court in Ali Imran’s case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner along with the Secondary School Certiﬁcate issued by the S.S.C. Board of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made in the above cited judgment within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 13th October, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 1809 OF 12008 13th October, 2008. [1] 2003(3) ALD 625