IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3917 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 29th June, 2010. Gursewak Kaler & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Karam Inder Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 14.10.2009 [Annexure P-11] vide which the respondent – Authorities have rejected issuance of Passport to petitioner No.1. It may be mentioned here that the first petitioner applied for issuance of a Passport on the plea that he has been adopted by petitioner No. 2 and her husband, namely, Angrej Pal. It is averred by him that though he was adopted on 15.08.1997, however, a formal adoption deed has been executed on 5.4.2005 [Annexure P-4] only. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their reply. During the course of hearing, it transpires that the Passport to petitioner No. 1 [the minor child] with description of his adoptive parents has not been issued on the premise that the age difference between the 'adopted child' and the 'adoptive mother' is less than 21 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the age difference calculated by the respondents is based upon an erroneous date of birth earlier mentioned in the Passport issued to petitioner No. 2. According to the learned counsel, her correct date of birth is '19.06.1973' and a correction to this effect has already been made in the Passport as well. In the light of this plea, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that let all the relevant documents, like, birth certificate, educational qualification certificate[s] showing the date of birth, civil Court decree, if any, and a copy of the Passport in which the date of birth of petitioner No. 2 has been corrected, be submitted to the Competent Authority, who shall then re-consider the petitioner's request for issuance of Passport with description of his adoptive parents. A duly attested copy of the Passport of Angrej Singh [ husband of petitioner No. 2] shall also be submitted. In addition to these documents, respondent No. 5 shall be at liberty to ask the petitioners to submit any other information, if so required. Upon furnishing the required documents, the needful shall be done within a period of one month. Disposed of. Dasti. June 29, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE