IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.7341 of 2010 Between: Murru Pavitra Tejaswi. … Petitioner And: The Regional Passport Officer, Passport Office, Hyderabad. … Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. K.Rajya Lakshmi. Counsel for the Respondent: None. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not considering the request of the petitioner for correcting her place of birth as Tiruvolu village in Visakhapatnam instead of Ananthapur and her date of birth as 25-3-1990 instead of 25-5-1990 in the passport bearing No.A2697459, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Smt.K.Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though served, no one appeared for the respondent. The validity of the passport issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1997 has expired on 27-1-2007. She was minor at the time when the passport was issued. At the time of seeking renewal of the passport, the petitioner is stated to have noticed that two mistakes occurred in her passport regarding her date of birth and place of birth. According to her, she was born in her native place i.e., Tirovolu village in Visakhapatnam District on 25-3-1990. However, as her father was working in S.K.University at Anantapur at the time of her birth, her place of birth was shown in the passport as Anantapur. As regards the date of birth, it is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the certificate, dated 9-1- 1997, issued by the Headmistress of the S.K. University Campus English Medium School, Anantapur, her date of birth was mentioned as 25-5-1990 and that, subsequently, the same authority has issued another certificate dated 26-4-1997 by showing her date of birth as 25-3-1990. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent in entertaining her application for renewal and issuing the new passport after incorporating the changes regarding her place of birth and date of birth in it. At the hearing, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the office of the respondent has insisted upon the petitioner to obtain a Court decree before applying for renewal of the passport with changes in the place and date of births. According to the petitioner, such a course is not required because as per Circular, dated 18-4-2001, issued by the Government of India only where the conflicting certificates issued by different authorities exist, the necessity of obtaining a decree from a Civil Court would arise. She pointed out that both the certificates showing the date of birth were issued by the same authority, viz., the Headmistress of S.K. University Campus English medium school, Anantapur, and that the Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education accords with the later certificate issued by the Headmistress showing the petitioner’s date of birth as 25-3-1990. In support of her contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Jerin Kainikaraparayil Mathew Vs. Regional Passport Officer - 2008(1) ALT 19. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and find merit therein. The Government of India issued Circular, dated 18-4- 2001, containing the following conditions: “ a) Where an applicant is seeking rectification/correction of a mistake in the entry on date of birth/place of birth in the passport, PIA (Passport issuing authority) may after verifying/satisfying himself, affect the correction treating the same as a technical correction. There is no need for a declaratory order in such cases. b) Where a competent authority issuing a birth certificate or an educational board registering a date of birth along with place of birth as valid were to issue any correction or amendment, PIA may effect the necessary amendment in the passport without insisting on a Court Order. As per the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1997, a competent authority issuing a certificate could also make necessary amendments to the same. c) Where the initial entry has been made on the basis of a supportive document issued by one competent authority i.e., school/educational authority and the applicant subsequently requests for a change on the basis of a certificate issued by another competent authority i.e., Municipal Authorities resulting in conflicting sources of valid proof, the PIA should direct the applicant to obtain a civil order from a competent Court of jurisdiction, certifying the valid date of birth/place of birth”. From the Circular reproduced above, it is evident that if an application for rectification/correction of mistakes in the entries of date of birth/place of birth in the passport is made, the Passport Issuing Authority may alter it after verifying/satisfying himself by treating the same as a technical correction. Whereas, under condition (c), such a correction will not be undertaken until a decree is obtained from the Civil Court, where the initial entry in the passport was made on the basis of a document issued by one competent authority and a request for change of the same was made on the basis of a certificate issued by another competent authority. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the instant case, evidently the entry regarding the petitioner’s date of birth in her passport was made on the basis of certificate dated 9-1-1997 issued by the Headmistress of S.K. University Campus English medium school, Anantapur. The same authority has again issued another certificate dated 26-4-1997 showing the petitioner’s date of birth as 25-3-1990. The said date is mentioned in the SSC certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education also. Thus, the conflicting certificates regarding the date of birth of the petitioner were issued by the same authority, viz., the Headmistresss of S.K. University Campus English medium school, Anantapur, and not by different authorities. In view of this indisputable fact, the necessity for the petitioner to approach the civil Court and obtain a decree for correction of entry relating to her date of birth does not arise. The judgment in Jerin Kainikaraparayil Mathew (supra) clearly supports the petitioner’s case in this regard. Similar is the position with correction of entry regarding place of birth. Unless there are conflicting certificates issued by two different authorities, it is not necessary for the petitioner to obtain a decree even for this purpose. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent to receive the petitioner’s application for renewal of passport, take a decision in the light of the findings contained in this order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:01-04-2010 Note: Issue CC by 6-4-2010 (BO) MNR