IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5771 of 2009(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NOORIYA P.A,W/O.S.SAJITH,PADUVANA HOUSE, KAYANTIKKARA, MUPPATHADAM.P.O,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5771 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that she was earlier married to a person called Sajid Ilahi on 13/12/1998. In the passport issued to the petitioner his name was entered as her husband. However, due to the strained relationship between the parties, marriage ended in divorce. This is certified by the Jama-Ath Committee as per Ext.P2. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner got married to another person called Sajith.S. and Ext.P3 is the marriage certificate issued in this behalf by Elookkara Thekke Palli Jama-Ath Committee. The petitioner submits that in view of the divorce and remarriage, she wants to get her husband's name corrected in Ext.P4 passport and wants to make an application for that purpose. The petitioner submits that she attempted to give an application in the prescribed format, but was informed by the respondent that the same will not be accepted. It is with these allegations, the writ petition is filed praying that the respondent be directed to allow the petitioner to make correction as sought for by her in her passport. WP(C) No.5771/2009 -2- 3. The learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submits that so far the petitioner has not made any application, and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent to consider the same. The allegation that the petitioner was informed that the application will not be accepted is also denied. 4. Even according to the petitioner, such correction is possible, only if an application in the proper format, accompanied by necessary fee is made to the respondent. Admittedly, in this case, such an application was not made. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondent, I have no reason to think that though an application was made, the respondent declined to accept it. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioner to make application seeking necessary corrections that she wants to be made in Ext.P4 passport, in the prescribed format, in which case if the application is otherwise in order, the respondent shall accept the application and pass necessary orders dealing with the request made by the WP(C) No.5771/2009 -3- petitioner. It is directed that if an application is so received, orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg