SCA/468/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 468 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= JITENDRAKUMAR BABUBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s) Versus THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER - AHMEDABAD - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DC DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1, MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1, MR HARIN P RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 07/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Ms.Vasavadatta Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent. SCA/468/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. Heard Mr.D.C.Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Vasavadatta Bhatt, learned Addl.Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. It appears from the record that the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 30.8.1955 in the certificate issued by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, which is produced at page No.16-Exh.A of the petition. In the School Leaving Certificate also, which is produced at Page No.17, the same date is mentioned. It seems that earlier because of some bonafide mistake committed by the petitioner, while preferring application for Passport, his date of birth has been mentioned as 30.8.1956. It is pertinent to note that along with the application, the petitioner had also produced both the above certificates. However, it appears that the respondent authority has not verified the said documents and issued the Passport mentioning the date of birth as 30.8.1956 of the petitioner. 4. Ms.Vasavadatta Bhatt, learned Addl.Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy available to take appropriate steps under the provisions of law for rectification of the mistake in the Passport. 5. In the present case, it may be noted that the date of birth of the petitioner, i.e. 30.8.1955 has been mentioned in the certificate issued by the SCA/468/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT Municipality as well as the School Leaving Certificate are same. But, in the application for Passport submitted by the petitioner, the date of birth is written as 30.8.1956. The above certificates were also submitted along with the application. Hence, at the most, it can only be said to be a bonafide mistake which has not been properly verified by the respondent authority. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted because of the aforesaid aspect of the matter. For this kind of an apparent bonafide mistake, the petitioner cannot be asked to avail any other remedy. 6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to issue the Passport to the petitioner in his name after making necessary correction in his date of birth as 30.8.1955 instead of 30.8.1956, pursuant to his application dated 3rd September 2007. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. (M.D.Shah, J.) Sreeram.