THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.7017 OF 2010 Dated 29th March, 2010 Between: Syed Zarina Banu …Petitioner And The Union of India and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Mangana Srirama Rao Counsel for the respondents : Sri Ch.Samson Babu S.C. for Central Government The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in correcting the petitioner’s name and date of birth in passport bearing No.M 825460 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to issue fresh passport with correct particulars pertaining to her name and date of birth without insisting on production of a Court decree. I have heard Sri Mangana Srirama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ch.Samson Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner made an application on 06.10.2009 for issuance of a passport. Through letter dated 01.12.2009, respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that she has suppressed material information on her obtaining passport previously and directed her to surrender the same. The petitioner appeared to have explained to respondent No.2 that when earlier application for passport was made, she was a child and that her parents obtained the said passport with an incorrect spelling of her name and wrong date of birth. The petitioner, thereafter, was asked by respondent No.2 to pay a penalty of Rs.2,000/- for suppression of old passport and she claimed that she has complied with the said demand by paying penalty on 06.01.2010. However, the petitioner felt aggrieved by communication dated 05.02.2010, whereby respondent No.2 insisted on furnishing of a Court order (decree) for change of date of birth. The above communication implies that while there can be no difficulty in changing the spelling of her name in the new passport, respondent No.2 insisted on obtaining of a Court decree by the petitioner for change of date of birth. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Circular, dated 18.04.2001, issued by the Government of India and contended that the petitioner’s case falls under Clause (a) of the said Circular. It is relevant to reproduce the contents of the said Circular hereunder: “ 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”. According to the above Circular, where the passport issuing authority is satisfied that a mistake occurred in the entry of date of birth, after verification/satisfying himself, he can effect correction in the passport treating the same as a technical correction; and, in such a case, there is no need for a declaratory order. Even in cases falling under Clause (b), where the competent authority, who has issued the certificate earlier, has issued a corrected or amended certificate, there is no need for the person seeking rectification of entry in the passport regarding date of birth to approach a civil Court and obtain a decree. It is only in respect of the persons falling in Clause (c) i.e., where there are two conflicting documents issued by different authorities, a person will have to approach the civil Court and obtain a decree. From the averments contained in the affidavit, it appears that the petitioner’s case falls under Clause (a) supra, i.e., on the basis of the Secondary School Certificate, the petitioner is seeking rectification/correction of the mistake crept in the passport. If respondent No.2 is satisfied that there is no other conflicting document produced on behalf of the petitioner, on the basis of which the passport was issued, he shall correct the date of birth in the petitioner’s passport without relegating her to the civil Court. If, on the other hand, respondent No.2 finds a certificate issued by a competent authority containing the petitioner’s date of birth on the basis of which passport was issued and the said entry is coming into conflict with the document, which the petitioner is now proposing to produce, then only the petitioner can be asked to obtain a decree from the competent civil Court. Respondent No.2 is, therefore, directed to receive the petitioner’s application for correction of her date of birth and name and issuance of corrected passport and dispose of the same in the light of the observations contained above, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the said application. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.9058 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 29th March, 2010 vrn