Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Habeebulla Mehkri vs The Regional Passport Officer on 4 July, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JULY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.9256/2013 (GM-PASS)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED HABEEBULLA MEHKRI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
PERMANENT RESIDING AT:
NO.33, 3RD CROSS, MD BLOCK,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT:-
7288 W LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY NE,
REDMOND, WA-98052
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAYNA KOTHARI, ADV. )
AND:
1. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,
80 FEET ROAD, 8TH BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560 095.
2. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
PASSPORT DIVISION,
#03, PAATIALA HOUSE,
ANNEXE, NEW DELHI-1. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SYED SHENAZ, ADV. FOR R1 & 2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT
THE R1 AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE PLACE OF BIRTH IN THE
PETITIONERS PASSPORT BEARING NO.K6386907 AS CHENNAI
INSTEAD OF BANGALORE
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the first respondent-authority to change the entry relating to the place of birth indicated in the petitioner's passport bearing No.K6386907 by correctly indicating as 'Chennai' instead of 'Bangalore'.
2. The case of the petitioner is that as per the Birth Certificate as at Annexure-C, it would establish that the petitioner was born in Chennai. The certificate has been presently obtained and the same was furnished to the respondent. It is pointed out that as per the Circular dated 29.10.2007 (Annexure-M), a provision has been made for change of entries relating to date of birth and place of birth in passports. As per Clause-(a) therein, the requirement is to furnish an appropriate Birth Certificate and seek for change. In that circumstance, it is contended that the respondents were not justified in issuing the 3 communication dated 14.08.2012 by which the respondents have reiterated their earlier communication stating that a declaratory order is to be obtained from the Judicial Magistrate . It is contended that when the circular clearly indicates that such declaration is not required and the authorities could accept the documents and thereafter correct the same, the respondent be directed to effect the change is the contention.
3. The learned counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the passport issued in favour of the petitioner had been subsisting for more than 15 years and the place of birth which had been indicated as Bangalore had not been changed till the present request was made. Hence it is contended that such belated plea put forth by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
4. In the light of the above, all that is required to be noticed is the Circular dated 29.10.2007 which clearly indicates that in the event of correction of the place of birth, the supporting documents that are required to be 4 produced as indicated therein would be sufficient for the purpose and it has been clarified that there is no need for any declaratory order in such cases.
5. That being the position, all that the respondents are required to ascertain is with regard to the validity and genuineness of the Birth Certificate submitted by the petitioner. If the respondents find that it is not a reliable document for the reasons to be recorded by them, then only the other actions become necessary, which is not the case herein. Therefore, a direction is issued to the respondent to consider the Birth Certificate produced by the petitioner, ascertain its validity and thereafter act upon the same. If it is found to be genuine, the respondents shall grant the correction as sought for. The enquiry if necessary would be made by respondents themselves and there would be no need for obtaining the declaratory decree, if the respondent finds that there is nothing to doubt the Birth Certificate submitted by the petitioner.
5
6. In order to enable the expeditious consideration, the petitioner shall now file a representation along with a copy of the documents and a copy of this order with the first respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The process of consideration of the documents shall be completed by the first respondent as expeditiously as possible not later than six weeks from the date of submission of the representation. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms