Karnataka High Court
Miss Shruti Yellamma vs The Regional Passport Officer on 25 February, 2014
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
R.F.A.No.1994/2013 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
Miss Shruti Yellamma,
D/o Renukanath Prahlad Rao Mahendrakar,
Aged about 22 years,
#17, Ramachandra Building,
1st Cross, 3rd Main,
V.R.Layout, Mathikere,
Bangalore - 54. ... Appellant
(By Sri Sudhindra S.A, Advocate)
AND:
The Regional Passport Officer,
Bangalore Regional passport office,
80 feet road, 8th Block,
Kormangala, Bangalore - 95. ... Respondent
(By Sri H.Jayakara Shetty, Advocate)
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Order 41 Rule 1
read with Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment and
decree dated 18.9.2013 passed in O.S.No.6768/2012 on the file
of the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,
dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Admission this
day, the Court delivered the following:
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 18.9.2013 passed by the Court of the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.6768/2012.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent issued the passport to the appellant - plaintiff on 6.4.1999 showing her date of birth as 16.9.1992 and her name as Shruthi Yellamma. The said passport expired on 5.4.2004. The appellant sought the renewal of the passport with the corrections in the date of birth and in the spelling of her name. According to the appellant she has born on 16.9.1990 and her name is Shruti Yellamma. On the respondent rejecting the appellant's application, she caused the issuance of the legal notice and thereafter filed the suit for declaring her date of birth as 16.9.1990 and her name as Shruti Yellamma.
3. The respondent filed the written statement stating that no changes in the documents can be made, unless the Court orders the same. Based on the rival pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:
3
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs of declaration and mandatory injunction?
2. What order or Decree?
4. The appellant got herself examined as PW1 marking the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On behalf of the respondent, its passport granting officer, Ms. Rathnam Amarjothi was examined as DW1. 4 documents were marked in exhibit 'D' series. The Trial Court answered the issues against the appellant and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, this appeal is preferred by the plaintiff.
5. Sri Sudhindra S.A, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the letter 'h' has come in the name of the appellant, as the passport was applied for in Hyderabad. The Telugu- speaking people spell the name as 'Shruthi', whereas the Kannada-speaking people spell the same as 'Shruti'.
6. The learned counsel submits that the corrections sought are only to bring the entries in the passport in conformity with the matriculation certificate. The matriculation certificate (Ex.P1) correctly shows the name of the appellant as Shruti Yellamma. It shows her date of birth as 16.9.1990. He also brings to my 4 notice the certificate of birth (Ex.P3) issued by the Tumkur Municipality. That also shows her date of birth as 16.9.1990.
7. Sri H.Jayakara Shetty, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the entries in the passport are as per the information furnished by the appellant in her application (Ex.D2) for the issuance of the passport. He submits that in the said application, the appellant's name is shown as Shruthi Yellamma and her date of birth as 16.9.1992. After enjoying the passport for 5 years, she is not entitled to demand any change in her passport at the time of seeking its renewal. He submits that the change or correction in the date of birth and in the name cannot be made after the expiry of 2 years from the date of the issuance of the original passport, unless the competent court has ordered the change and/or correction.
8. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The copies of the deposition and the exhibits are made available to me at the bar. At the outset, what is to be noticed is that the corrections sought are of absolutely innocuous nature. The correction sought is in the spelling of the appellant's name. In the passport, her name is 5 shown as Shruthi. It seems the Telugu-speaking people spell the name as Shruthi; the Kannada-speaking people spell the name differently by not using 'h'. The Kannada-speaking people spell it as Shruti. It is also to be noticed that the name of the appellant is also correctly shown as Shruti in the matriculation certificate, which is produced as Ex.P1.
9. Similarly, the said matriculation certificate shows her date of birth as 16.9.1990. The birth certificate (Ex.P3) issued by the Tumkur Municipality under the Registrar of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 also shows her date of birth as 16.9.1990. So, the entry in the passport regarding the date of birth has to be brought in conformity with the correct birth date shown in the birth certificate issued by the local self-Government.
10. That the appellant's date of birth was shown as 16.9.1992 in the application for the issuance of passport does not absolve the officers, entrusted with scrutinizing the applications for the issuance of the passport, of their responsibility. They ought to have called for the original birth certificate issued by the Tumkur Municipality for the purpose of 6 ascertaining and satisfying themselves as to whether the date of birth as shown in the application for passport was correct or not.
11. It cannot be the respondent's case that by getting her date of birth corrected, the appellant becomes younger and would claim some benefits on the basis of the same. By effecting the correction, she would become older by two years. There can be no tenable resistance to the corrections being sought. The Trial Court is not justified in dismissing the suit ignoring the matriculation certificate (Ex.P1) and the birth certificate (Ex.P3).
12. In the result, I allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree. The suit is decreed declaring the appellant
- plaintiff's date of birth as 16.9.1990 and her name as Shruti Yellamma. Consequently, there shall also be a direction to the respondent to make the corrections while showing her date of birth and her name at the time of the renewal of her passport.
13. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD