HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.26740 of 2007 Dt: 25-01-2008 Between: Smt. V. Bhagyalakshmi W/o.Amarendra Chakravarthi ... Petitioner And The Passport Officer, Office at 80 feet Road, 8th Block, Kora Mangala, Near National Games Village, Bangalore, Karnataka State ... Respondent ORDER: This court ordered notice before admission on 14-12-2007. Heard the counsel. 2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not processing the application for grant of passport by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 27-11-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and pass such other suitable orders. 3. It is stated that the petitioner made an application for grant of passport on 22-08-2007 vide File No.B07192307 by mentioning his date of birth as 01-05-1983 as per the birth certificate issued by the Village Revenue Officer and also mentioned the place of birth as Nidadavolu instead of Kurkuru. After submission of his application, the petitioner was asked to furnish the Transfer Certificate, etc. Accordingly, he had furnished the same. In the said Transfer Certificate, the petitioner’s date of birth was mentioned as 22-07-1984. As there is discrepancy in the date of birth as mentioned in the Transfer Certificate with that of the date of birth mentioned in the birth extract, the respondent stopped processing of his application. He also noticed that the place of birth was shown as Nidadavolu instead of Kurkuru by mistake. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 27-11-2007, bringing to the notice of the respondent the circumstances as to how the discrepancy happened as to the date of birth in the Transfer Certificate as well as birth extract and also requesting to treat the date of birth as 01-05-1983 which is final as per the date of birth extract and also requested to correct the place of birth as Kurkuru instead of Nidadavolu and to process the application accordingly. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner personally persuaded in the office of the respondent and the respondent did not choose to consider the petitioner’s representation and failed to take necessary action in the matter. As the respondent failed to take action to consider the petitioner’s representation and process the application, she is constrained to approach this court by way of this writ petition. 4. In MOHD. NASRULLAH KHAN v. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, HYDERABAD[1] it was held thus: “In Ali Imran V. Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad, I have 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 under. (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 provisions 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. In view of the above clarifications, I disposed of the said case observing as under: Be it noted that under the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, no power is vested in the Regional Passport Officer to correct entries in the passport. However, pursuant to the judgment of the High Court of Bombay referred to hereinabove, it is now permissible for the Regional Passport Officer to accept applications for rectification/correction. Nonetheless, as per clause (c) above, if an entry had been made on the basis of a supportive document issued by one authority i.e., school or educational authority and subsequently the applicant requests for a change of the entry on the basis of the certificate issued by another authority the passport issuing authority is required to direct the applicant to obtain a proper declaration from the civil Court. In this case, the petitioner has produced Secondary School Certificate to prove that his correct date of birth is 1-4- 1976. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is well supported and squarely falls in Clause (a) of the Circular dt. 18.4.2001.” 5. I n DURGEMPUDI VENKATA RAGHAVA v. PASSPORT OFFICER, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, PASSPORT OFFICE, HYDERABAD[2] it was held 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 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 birth, 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. In the light of the facts and circumstances, the action of the respondent is not just and proper. In the light of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to receive application from the petitioner for issuance of a passport changing petitioner’s date of birth as specified in the relief prayed for in the writ petition and take appropriate action in accordance with law in the light of the decisions specified supra and the Circular referred to above, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J. Date: 25-01-2008 Rns [1] 2005(1) ALT 95 [2] 2005 (1) ALT 751