Kerala High Court
Sukumaran Murali vs Union Of India on 10 March, 2017
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/19TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 5749 of 2017 (P)
---------------------------
PETITIONER :
-----------------------
SUKUMARAN MURALI, AGED 48 YEARS,
KUZHIVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, KANNAMKARAKONAM,
ATTINGAL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 101.
BY ADVS.SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
SRI.V.S.BOBAN
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
NEW DELHI, PIN -110 011.
2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 5749 of 2017 (P)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
BOARD OF PUBLIC EXAMINATION; KERALA STATE
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PASSPORT ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
-----------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.5749 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a holder of an Indian Passport bearing No.J1760031 issued by the 2nd respondent. The date of birth of the petitioner was happened to be wrongly incorporated as '15.5.1962' instead of his actual date of birth '23.4.1968'. Petitioner noticed the defect only recently. Petitioner requested the authority to make necessary correction on the basis of his S.S.L.C. book, which was issued prior in time. Though the authority was convinced that, the date of birth is wrongly entered in the passport, it was informed that, unless a direction is issued by this court, the authority will not carry out any correction.
2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement stating that the difference in the date of birth as shown in the passport and claimes to be corrected is 6 years. Petitioner has been holding the passport over 26 years and the document now furnished by him i.e., S.S.L.C. book was available with him even at the time of obtaining the passport in the year 1990. But he has not approached the Passport Authority seeking correction of date of W.P.(C). No.5749 of 2017 2 birth at any point of time. It is also stated that, petitioner has not offered any genuine reason for the delay in requesting the date of birth correction now. It is also submitted that, obtaining passport by producing wrong details attracts Section 10(3)(b) and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 and the Passport Authority is vested with powers to impound or cause to be impounded any passport or travel document obtained on the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of passport or travel document or any person on his behalf.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned ASGI and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.
4. The issue in respect of the correction in date of birth in the passport was considered by this court and held that, a time limit is provided as per the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. Therefore, in accordance with the stipulations contained under the said notification, petitioner is duty bound to produce the passport for correction within a period of 5 years W.P.(C). No.5749 of 2017 3 from the date of issuance of the passport or after the aforesaid cut off period, providing sufficient evidence to establish that, petitioner could not file an application seeking correction of the entries in the passport within the time limit provided in the Office Memorandum and the mistake is crept in bonafidely. The aforesaid notification is not under challenge before this court, which thus means, the 2nd respondent acted in accordance with law and no manner of illegality, unfairness, malafides or arbitrariness can be alleged against the 2nd respondent.
Therefore, the writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE smv 10.03.2017