IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18493 of 2011(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ROY.K.J, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.JOHNY,KALIYANGARA HOUSE, MARATHAKARA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,ERNAKULAM,COCHIN -682 036. BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,A.S.G OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.18493/2011-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PAGE NOS. 1 TO 5 OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY,1990. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE S.S.L.C. BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 28/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 18493 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was issued Ext.P1 Passport. In that Passport his date of birth was shown as 1.3.1967. According to the petitioner the said entry was a mistake. On expiry of Ext.P1 Passport when the petitioner made a fresh application, he therefore enclosed Ext.P2 extract of his S.S.L.C. Book to indicate his date of birth to be 1.3.1973. 2. On receipt of the said application, respondent issued Ext.P3 requiring the petitioner to furnish explanation regarding the difference in the date of birth along with a court order. It is challenging Ext.P3, seeking a direction for issuance of the Passport with the date of birth as mentioned in Ext.P2, this writ petition is filed. 3. In the judgment reported in Aboo v. Regional W.P.(C) No. 18493 OF 2011 :2 : Passport Officer(2008 (1) KLT 992), this court has already held that if as a matter of fact there is a mistake in the passport, when materials are produced it is open to the Passport issuing authority to consider the matter and correct the mistake if he is so satisfied. Further it was also held that if such a course is not possible it is only at that stage, the Passport issuing authority can require production of a declaratory order from the court. 4. Applying the said principle to this case, I must hold that on receipt of the application with necessary documents, the Passport issuing authority ought to have conducted an enquiry and the stage of requiring production of court order is only subsequent thereto. In that view of the matter I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions. 5. The petitioner will file his explanation to Ext.P3. This shall be done within 15 days from today. It is directed W.P.(C) No. 18493 OF 2011 :3 : that on the filing of the explanation as explained above, the respondent will conduct an enquiry with notice to the petitioner and pass orders on his application. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the concerned authority for appropriate action. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-