Gujarat High Court
Bhartiben vs Mamlatdar on 23 December, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15465/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15465 of 2010
=========================================================
BHARTIBEN
MULJIBHAI PATEL W/O JASHUBHAI AMBALAL RAY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MAMLATDAR
& 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DIPAK H SINDHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS
MAITHILI MEHTA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 2,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)
for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 23/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioner contends that her birth date recorded in the passport is incorrect and not in consonance with date recorded in the birth certificate. Seeking correction of the entries in the passport, he applied before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jambusar. The learned Magistrate, however, by an order dated 4.10.10 rejected the said application. Before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner had made reference to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Regional Passport Officer v. Kokilaben Jaswantlal Panchal, 2009(2) GLR 1246. Despite which, the learned Magistrate refused to entertain the application.
In the case of Regional Passport Officer (supra), the Bench made the following observations:
12. We are therefore, clearly of the view that Passport Authorities are not expected to make their own independent enquiry when there is a dispute or difference with regard to the date of birth, place of birth or name entered in the Passport, especially when entries were once made on the basis of records produced by the Passport holder.
If there is any mistake on the records already produced, based on which entries were already made, then it is for the party who seeks correction to produce documents after carrying out necessary correction by the concerned statutory authorities, Judicial Magistrate or the Civil Court, as the case may be. Passport Authorities are always competent to direct the parties to produce relevant documents either from the authorities functioning under the Births and Deaths Register or from the Judicial Magistrate or from the Civil Court, as the case may be. On production of corrected documents, Passport Authorities will immediately carry out necessary correction in the Passport.
xxxxx
14. We have already indicated that sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act enables the Passport authority to ask for furnishing such additional information, documents or certificates, as may be considered necessary by such authority for the proper disposal of the application. Therefore, it is always open to the Passport authority to insist that, when application is submitted by any person for correction of date of birth, place of birth or name, to produce relevant certificates issued by the Competent statutory authority, Judicial Magistrate or Civil Court, based on which necessary correction could be made in the Passport already issued. Passport Authority is not competent or expected to make a rowing enquiry by its own to decide as to whether date of birth, place of birth or name already entered in the Passport is correct or not, which in our view, is not the function of the Passport Authority functioning under the Passport Act and the Rules and Regulations. We therefore disagree with the reasoning of the ruling rendered by the learned Judge as well as the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
15. We therefore, allow all these appeals and set aside the directions given by the learned Single Judges to the Passport Authorities to conduct its own independent enquiry to decide as to whether the correction sought for was justified or not by recording reasons, which in our view are exclusively the functions to be discharged by the statutory authorities like Registrar of Births and Deaths, Judicial Magistrate or the Civil Court, as the case may be, depending upon the facts of each case.
Present is a case where the petitioner does not seek correction in the date of birth in the birth certificate, but contends that the date entered in the passport is different from that recorded in the birth certificate. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot approach under the provisions of Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, but has to obtain necessary declaration from the Court as held by the Division Bench of this Court in bringing entries in the passport in consonance with the entries made in the birth certificate. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the application as not competent. The learned Magistrate shall pass fresh order after holding such inquiry as may be found necessary. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn) Top