THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.31741 of 2010 BETWEEN: Mohammed Abdul Rub PETITIONER And Union of India, rep. by its Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport office at Secunderabad. RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig Nizami Counsel for the respondents: Sri P. Ashok Goud The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is misconceived and filed without any cause of action. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to correct his date of birth in the passport. According to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner holds a passport bearing No. Z1882819 issued by the Attaché, Embassy of India at Riyadh, Kingdom of South Arabia on 16.02.2010. The said passport is said to be valid up to 15.2.2020. According to the petitioner he was born on 15.05.1970 whereas his date of birth was entered in the passport as 15.05.1968. It is his complaint that when he approached the respondent with a request to correct his date of birth, the respondent directed him to obtain orders from the Court of law. Under Section 10 of the Passport Act, the competent authority may having regard to the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 6 or any notification under Section 19, vary or cancel the endorsement on a passport or travel document or exercise any power enumerated therein. Rule 5 of the Passport Rules, 1980 provides that an application for issue of a passport or a travel document for renewal thereof or for any miscellaneous service, shall be made in the appropriate form set out therefor in Part-I of Schedule-III and in accordance with the procedure and instructions set out in such form, and every such application for any of the aforesaid purpose shall be made only in the form printed or supplied by the Central Government or any other person specifically authorized to do so. The said authority may during the course of enquiry under Section 5 (2) may require the applicant to furnish such additional information, documents or service as may be considered necessary by such authority for the proper disposal of the application. The provisions of Section 10 and Rule 5, therefore, prescribe that an applicant should approach the passport authority even for the change of date of birth by filing an application in the prescribed manner, and on such application it is competent for the authority to hold an enquiry and take a decision thereon. There is absolutely no averment in the affidavit that the petitioner has made an application in the prescribed manner. Evidently the petitioner has not made such an application. The learned counsel for the petitioner however seeks to rely on the averments in the affidavit which state that the petitioner made a request at the Embassy of India at Riyadh and a similar request to the respondent herein. The said averment does not make any sense. Therefore, in the absence of a specific averment that the petitioner has made an application in the prescribed form, there is no obligation on the part of the respondent to attend to his request. In this view of the matter no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However, learned counsel seeks permission enabling the petitioner to file an application as per the law and pursue the matter before the respondent. In view of the said request, the petitioner is permitted to submit an application to the competent authority complying provisions of Rule 5 of the Passport Rules, 1980 and on such application the respondent may consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and the circulars, if any, governing the subject. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 30th March, 2011 Js. Note: C.C. in two days.