IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 4788 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.SHAKEER.C.A., AGED 41, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, DOOR NO.C.C.44/2241, PAREPARAMBU ROAD, KALOOR P.O., COCHIN-682 017, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PETER THARAKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 4788 of 2010-W - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner was issued with Passport bearing No.X751391 in the year 1985, the period of which was upto 7.8.1990. This was extended upto 7.8.1995. Ext.P1 is the copy of the same. Ext.P2 is the copy of the new passport issued as No.T 605173 which was valid upto 10.1.2006. Ext.P3 is the copy of the passport issued for the period from 13.6.2005 to 12.6.2015. In all these passports the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 5.3.1963 instead of 29.4.1968. According to the petitioner, this was caused inadvertently. Apart from that, in these passports, his name is shown as Abdul Shakeer instead of Shakeer. Ext.P4 is the copy of the relevant page of the SSLC book. 2. In order to correct his name and initial in the records, the petitioner effected publication in the Kerala Gazette, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P5. For incorporating the correct name and initial of the petitioner in the passport, the petitioner filed an application before the Regional Passport Officer, Ernakulam. On the basis of the said application, a new passport has been issued on 31.7.2009 which is numbered as wpc 4788/2010 2 H4803916, the validity of which is upto 30.7.2019. 3. Thereafter, he was issued with Ext.P6 letter directing him to produce the passport before the Passport Office. The petitioner accordingly surrendered the passport. After waiting for some time, he filed Ext.P8 request to return the passport. According to him, he wants to go to Saudi Arabia to observe Umra, a religious practice. 4. As directed by this Court, the respondents have filed a statement. It is averred in para 4 that with regard to the correction of date of birth there were no sufficient documents. Accordingly, a letter was issued to surrender the passport. It is further pointed out that for correcting an entry like the one, a declaratory order issued by the concerned Munsiff’s Court is necessary. It is also stated in para 5 that the first respondent has no objection for restoring the passport if the petitioner produce a copy of the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths before the first respondent and after imposing penalty/fine under the relevant provisions of the Passport Act, 1967. 5. With regard to the change of name, it is further pointed out that the applicant should furnish two documents, viz. a sworn affidavit and paper cutting of two leading daily newspapers. 6. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 7. With regard to the correction of date of birth, the stand taken by the respondents is that as the petitioner has applied for correction of date of wpc 4788/2010 3 birth in the passport after two years, a declaratory order is necessary. With regard to this aspect, this Court has considered a similar question in W.P. (C) No.5506/2010. Therein, in paragraphs 4 and 5, after referring t the circular also, it was held thus: “A declaration from a Court is required in a case 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 etc., resulting in conflicting documents for valid proof. Herein the petitioner is having only one document i.e., the copy of the Admission Register. 5. Then the question is whether Clause (c) in Annexure R1(A) will stand in the way of passport issuing authority making any correction. Discretion could be exercised where the correction is one not more than two years and applicant provides satisfactory explanation. In this case it is not clear when the initial entry was made and what was the document produced before the competent authorities at that time. Clause (c) in circular R1(A) reads thus: “Where files have already been destroyed, PIAs could use their discretion in correction of date of birth without a Court Order, where such correction is only in months (not more than two years) and applicants provide satisfactory explanation that the same document was provided at the time of initial passport application.” The period of two years is prescribed for the administrative convenience. That does not mean that in other cases there is a total bar in exercising the power.” wpc 4788/2010 4 8. In the light of the above, a declaratory order from the court is not necessary in all cases. Herein, the petitioner produced the relevant page of SSLC book showing the correct date of birth. It is shown that the initial entry is a clerical mistake. The various documents produced can be accepted subject to verification. Going by the details furnished by the petitioner, it can be seen that the earlier entry can only be a mistake. Therefore, the same can be corrected in the light of the original of Ext.P4. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has already produced the Gazette copy and he will file a sworn affidavit and produce the paper cuttings of two dailies as stated in para 6 of the statement. 10. Therefore, if the petitioner produces all these details within a period of three weeks, the same will be accepted and appropriate action will be taken to return the passport to the petitioner without any delay. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/