IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16054 of 2011(F) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- MARY THOMAS, W/O. BABY PETER, PARAPPATTU HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHY.P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.BETTY K. ALUKKA SMT.V.S.SIMI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-36. BY ADVS. SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASGI ADV. SRI.T.SANJAY, CGSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 16054 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PASSPORT. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER. EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE NON AVAILABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 16.3.11. EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PARISH PRIEST DATED 24.07.06. EXT.P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF BAPTISM REGISTER. EXT.P6 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE IMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATION PROCESSING FEE INVOICE. EXT.P7 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE FILE COVER OF THE APPLICATION FORM. EXT.P8 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 29-10-2007. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16054 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has been issued a passport from the office of the 2nd respondent. In the said passport, petitioner's date of birth has been indicated as 31/9/1959. According to the petitioner, the said date is incorrect and the correct date of birth is 31/5/1959. 2. When the period of passport expired, producing the baptism certificate, petitioner made an application for a new passport. In view of the inconsistency in the date of birth and as according to the respondents, baptism certificate is not an acceptable document, the application was declined to be entertained. It is therefore the writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to issue a new passport with the correct date of birth of the petitioner. 3. A statement has been filed by the respondents. According to the respondents, in view of Annexure R1(a) circular, the request for correction of date of birth can be entertained, provided a duly acceptable certificate issued by a competent authority is produced. It is stated that the baptism certificate is WPC No. 16054/11 :2 : not an acceptable certificate, and therefore, the petitioner should produce a declaratory order from Court. 4. If the rules governing the issuance of passport require production of a specified document for entertaining a request for change of date of birth, necessarily an applicant should comply with such a requirement. In this case, going by Annexure R1(a), the baptism certificate produced by the petitioner is unacceptable. In such circumstances, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to either produce an acceptable document or approach the Civil Court as indicated by this Court in Aboo v. Regional Passport Officer (2008(1) KLT 992) to get a declaratory order and produce the same before the respondents. With that liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp