IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29915 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.S.SUBAIDA SALIM, KONNICKAL HOUSE, MADAKKATHANAM P.O., MANJALLOOR PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686670. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-11001. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, KOCHI-678036. ASG SRI. T.P.M. IBRAHIMKHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.29915 OF 2010(L) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. 2. Petitioner submits that she is an Indian citizen. A passport was issued on the strength of which she was working as a house made in Saudi Arabia. It would appear that she had escaped from the employer and surrendered in the police station. Thereafter, she was deported to India on the strength of an Emergency Certificate that was issued at the time of her departure from Saudi Arabia. On the strength of Emergency Certificate, petitioner landed India and thereupon she was also issued Impound Slip, a copy of which is Ext.P2. Petitioner states that both in the Emergency Eertificate and in the Impound slip her name has been wrongly given. 3. On arrival in Kerala, petitioner applied to the 2nd respondent for the issuance of a fresh passport. Petitioner states that subsequently some of her colleagues manged to retrieve her passport from her erstwhile employer and that the said passport WPC.No. 29915/2010 :2 : was also submitted to the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent is refusing to process the application submitted by the petitioner for issue of a fresh passport on the ground that the name in the passport and in the application did not tally with the name in the Emergency Certificate and the Impound Slip. It is complaining of delay in processing the application that the writ petition is filed. 4. Counsel appearing for the respondent confirmed the receipt of the application from the petitioner. However, according to him, in view of the error in the name of the petitioner as indicated in the document submitted by the petitioner herself, the 2nd respondent has sought clarification from the Saudi Arabian authorities and it is for that reason the matter is delayed. 5. In my view, since the petitioner herself concedes that there is a mistake in the Emergency Certificate and Impound Slip and when the petitioner claims that her correct name is as shown in the passport already issued and in the application submitted, there is no reason for the respondents to await any clarification from the Saudi Arabian authorities. Even if they offer any clarification, such response from them can only be based on the WPC.No. 29915/2010 :3 : documents which are already produced by the petitioner. That apart when an application is made and when there is a mistake, it is for the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry into the genuineness of the name claimed made by the petitioner and pass orders in the matter, which should be completed expeditiously. Therefore I direct the 2nd respondent to process the application submitted by the petitioner, if necessary, conduct an enquiry in to the genuineness of the name claimed by the petitioner and pass orders on the application. This the 2nd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/