Kerala High Court
Mr.Jabbar Rayammarakkar Veetil Arath vs Union Of India on 22 January, 2016
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/12TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 20546 of 2016 (P)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
MR.JABBAR RAYAMMARAKKAR VEETIL ARATH,
S/O.KADER, RAYAMMARAKKAR VEETIL,
P.O.MATHILAKAM, MATHILMOOLA,
THRISSUR RURAL- 680 685.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1.UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
NEW DELHI - 111 001.
2.THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN - 682 036.
3.THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR, PIN: 680 685.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05-07-2016, THE COURT ON 03-08-2016 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 20546 of 2016 (P)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
P1 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASSPORT BEARING NO.K 904965.
P2 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE VISA.
P3 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASSPORT BEARING NO.F 65 82217.
P4 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAN CARD.
P5 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ONLINE APPOINTMENT APPLICATION.
P6 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE.
P7 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
P8 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/1/2016.
P9 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2/5/2016.
P10 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 1/6/2016.
P11 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.4484/2016
DATED 9/3/2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.20546 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Dated 3rd August, 2016.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has applied for and obtained a passport on 17.5.1976. The date of birth of the petitioner was shown in the said passport as 8.11.1950. The said passport was renewed from time to time. According to the petitioner, he was born only on 8.11.1959 and that therefore, the entries as to the date of birth in the original passport as also the renewed passports are incorrect and liable to be corrected. The petitioner has, therefore, submitted an application during April, 2015 for correction of the entry as to his date of birth contained in the latest passport. The said application was rejected by the second respondent on the ground that a decision of the court is required for carrying out the correction requested for by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by WPC 20546/16 2 filing W.P.(C) No.4484 of 2016 seeking directions to the second respondent to correct the entry relating to the date of birth as contained in his passport. In the meanwhile, the Government of India has issued an Office Memorandum on 26.11.2015, wherein, a detailed procedure for entertaining applications for correction of date of birth in the passports has been laid down. The said Office Memorandum, inter alia, provides that, no request shall be entertained/accepted by the authorities in cases where the applicants apply for correction with regard to the date of birth in passport after a period of five years from the date of issue of the passport with the alleged wrong date of birth. There were a batch of writ petitions challenging the said Office Memorandum. Since the case of the petitioner also falls within the purview of the said Office Memorandum, the writ petition preferred by him was also considered along with the said batch of writ petitions. This Court disposed of the said batch of writ petitions as per Ext.P11 judgment with the following directions :
i. The passport authority shall consider the WPC 20546/16 3 explanation of each of the writ petitioner to find genuineness of this claim.
ii. If it is made clear the passport authority need not entertain any application in routine manner for correction of date of birth unless such application is filed along with an explanation explaining the delay in approaching the passport authority. If such application is filed, the passport authority shall consider the same and take appropriate decision in the light of the stand taken by the Central Government in writ petition(C) No.599/2016.
iii.It is made clear that these directions need not be construed as a direction to relax the directions in OM, but only to allievate the genuine grievances of the holder of the passport to have a redressal and need be construed as direction upholding the right to have access to justice.
iv.However the passport authority shall entertain all applications for correction of date of birth if such holder of the passport produce the civil court decree filed in suit initiated prior to issuance of OM dated 26.11.2015, wherein a direction is given to the passport authority to correct the WPC 20546/16 4 date of birth notwithstanding the directions in OM.
v. If any application has been filed for correction prior to issuance of OM, the same shall be considered in accordance with the relevant regulations prevailing prior to the date of OM." Thereupon, the application of the petitioner for correction of date of birth was considered as per the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P11 judgment. Ext.P10 is the communication issued to the petitioner in this connection. As per Ext.P10, the petitioner was informed that since the petitioner has been holding a passport with a particular date of birth ever since 1976 and since there is a difference of about nine years between the two dates, his request cannot be considered. Ext.P10 is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. A statement has been filed by the Assistant Solicitor General in this case.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Solicitor General. WPC 20546/16 5
4. As noted above, the case of the petitioner is that he was born on 8.11.1959 and therefore, his date of birth entered in the passport, viz., 8.11.1950 is incorrect. He relies on Ext.P7 birth certificate to establish his case that he was born on 8.11.1959 and not on 8.11.1950. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P11 judgment, this Court has clarified that despite the outer time limit of five years prescribed in the Office Memorandum referred to therein, genuine claims for correction of date of birth shall be entertained based on the explanation offered by the persons concerned. It is alleged by the petitioner that his case is a genuine case in the light of Ext.P7 birth certificate and therefore, the second respondent should have ordered correction. The contention raised by the second respondent, on the other hand, is that in the absence of any explanation from the petitioner as to how the mistake occurred in the original passport, it can only be presumed that the original passport was obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud on the authorities. According to the second respondent, such cases do not deserve any sympathy. It is also contended WPC 20546/16 6 by the second respondent that in so far as the petitioner has been using the passport for all practical purposes for 40 years, the entries contained therein which have been in existence for the last 40 years cannot be corrected.
5. This Court had occasion to deal with the importance of the entries in the passports in Jayakumar v. Regional Passport Officer, Tvm (2015(3) KHC 763). Paragraphs 20 to 22 of the said judgment read thus :
"20. The Passport hence, is a political document issued by the sovereign of a country to its citizen, giving him the protection due to a citizen of that country, in his travels and residence abroad. The citizen who travels abroad and resides abroad and gets himself employed abroad, however, traces his roots and his citizenry status to the country of his origin on the basis of his Passport, which is the basic document on which such travel, residence and employment is facilitated. The declarations made in the Passport and the stamp of approval by his/her sovereign State reveals the details of the identity of the citizen to all and sundry outside the country in his travels. The details entered therein are taken by any person/agency, of the outside country, in which he/she travels and resides as the authenticated details of his existence as a citizen of his/her country of origin. These details are acted upon in dealing with him, employing him and allowing him to travel and reside in the foreign countries.
WPC 20546/16 7
21. The consequences which could occur on a drastic change made to one of such essential identities, herein being the date of birth, is perceivable but not all possibilities easily discernible. For one it could be a termination of employment at the age of superannuation as per the laws of the foreign country. Legion and numerous are the decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, to correct the date of birth in service records, the claim should be made within a reasonable time from the initial appointment. No such claim can be entertained far later and not at all, at the fag end. This is so, since the date of birth declared entails certain consequences, upon which the affairs of other employees and the employer itself are arranged. If it be so for employment within the country, could we in todays world of comity of nations deny or decline such inevitable consequences of employment abroad? The employer abroad would have taken a citizen of this country into his employment on the basis of the Passport and on the basis of the age disclosed therein. If the same is changed after a very many number of years, that too to the extent of reducing the age, from 5 to 7 years; then the consequence would be severe for such employer and the sanctity of the Passport issued by this country would be seriously jeopardised.
22. The Passport issued by the sovereign State is the property of the State under S.17 of the Passports Act, 1967. The details entered therein cannot be lightly interfered with, that too after very many years without any sustainable cause and without any explanation as to why initially such a wrong declaration was made and why now a change is sought; that too based on a document which was available with the WPC 20546/16 8 applicant when the original declaration was made. It is not proper for this Court to sit lightly in this jurisdiction and issue orders without proper satisfaction of an illegality or injustice having been occasioned. The consequence if any suffered by the petitioners are all their own making, which they never sought to rectify in all these years when they declared themselves to be of a particular age, by showing their Passports as the authenticated identify of their citizenship in India."
It is evident from the extracted portions of the said judgment that if the entries in the passport issued several years ago are meddled with lightly, the same would affect the integrity of the process of issuing passports in India. If the integrity of the passport issuing process in India is doubted, the holders of Indian passports are likely to be harassed at the hands of foreign authorities. That does not mean that in genuine cases, corrections shall not be made merely for the reason that the application was filed belatedly. As such, I have no doubt that correction can be ordered only in genuine cases. Coming to the facts of the present case, the specific case of the petitioner is that he has obtained the passport in the year 1976. If what is stated by the petitioner that he was born only on 8.11.1959 is WPC 20546/16 9 correct, even according to the petitioner, he has obtained the passport when he was a minor aged 17. The petitioner has not offered any explanation for having obtained the passport during his minority with a wrong date of birth. In so far as the petitioner was only 17 years of age at the time when he had obtained the passport, it can only be presumed that the conduct of the petitioner in obtaining the passport with a wrong date of birth was deliberate. Admittedly, the petitioner has been using the said passport for the last almost 40 years. In the circumstances, I do not think that the case of the petitioner is a genuine case. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs (true copy)