IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 33498 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KIZHAKKE PURAYIL ABDUL HAKKEEM, S/O. M.MOOSA, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT UDEMBAMTHALA, SOUTH TRIKKARIPUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI SRI.S.P.SURESH KUMAR SRI.ROY THOMAS (MUVATTUPUZHA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PASSPORT ISSUED. P2 COPY OF THE BOOKLET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER P3 COPY OF THE ADMISSION EXTRACT ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL P4 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR FROM THE RESPONDENT P5 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR FROM THE RESPONDENT P6 COPY OF THE PLAINT AND WRITTEN STATEMENT P7 COPY OF THE PLAINT AND WRITTEN STATEMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT 29.10.2007 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.33498 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is seeking for a direction to correct the date of birth of the petitioner which was wrongly entered into passport as 17/6/1961 instead of 05/03/1966. He is the holder of the passport bearing No.B 2041573 issued by the Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi. 2. The petitioner is relying upon Ext.P3, a copy of the Admission Register of the School, which shows the correct date of birth as 05/03/1966. 3. The learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent submitted that unless there is a declaration from a Court of Law, the respondent cannot effect any correction as sought for by the petitioner. Ext.R1 is the circular dated 29/10/2007 which has prescribed various conditions for effecting such a correction. Herein the petitioner is also relying upon the same. In petitioner's case is that the wrong entry was made only due to a clerical mistake. The learned Assistant Solicitor General further submitted that herein Clause (c) will apply and if that be so, the correction is of more than two years, and the passport W.P.(C)No.33498 of 2009 2 issuing authority has no power in such cases. 4. 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 conflicting documents for valid proof. Herein the petitioner is having only one document i.e., the copy of the Admission Register. 5. Then the question is whether Clause (c) in Annexure R1 will stand in the way of passport issuing authority making any correction. The said clause provides that discretion could be exercised where the correction is one not more than two years and applicant provides satisfactory explanation. In this case it is not clear when the initial entry was made and which was the document produced before the competent authorities at that time. Clause (c) in circular R1 reads thus: “Where files have already been destroyed, PIAs could use their discretion in correction of date of birth without a Court Order, where such correction is only in months (not more than two W.P.(C)No.33498 of 2009 3 years) and applicants provide satisfactory explanation that the same document was provided at the time of initial passport application.” The period of two years is prescribed evidently for the administrative convenience. That does not mean that in other cases there is a total bar in exercising the power. In this case passport was issued by the Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi. Obviously the respondent may not be having the records now but still if the respondent is satisfied on perusing the original of Ext.P3 that the entry in the passport regarding the date of birth is not the correct one and the date now claimed can be accepted, nothing prevents the respondent from correcting the same. The petitioner will have to satisfy the respondent with regard to his identity also by producing the Electoral identity Card or any other authentic records. If all such documents are produced, the respondent will peruse the same and effect the correction as requested for by the petitioner. Appropriate action will be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj