Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Advs.Sri.Santhosh P.Poduval
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
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 15TH POUSHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 38953 of 2017
PETITIONER(S)
INASU.T.P.,
AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. PATHROSE,
THARAKAN HOUSE, COLLEGE ROAD, PURANATTUKARA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
SMT.R.RAJITHA
SMT.RASHIDA CHEMMENAMPALLY
RESPONDENT(S):
THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O.,
COCHIN-682036.
BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-01-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 38953 of 2017 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ELECTORAL CARD OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADHAR CARD OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF SCHOOL ADMISSION
REGISTER ISSUED FROM ST. THOMAS UP SCHOOL,
KOONAMOOCHI.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NON-AVAILABILITY CERTIFICATE
ISSUED FROM CHOONDAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER DATED
17.10.17 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
(TRUE COPY) P.S. TO JUDGE
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.38953 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated 5th January, 2018.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner applied to the respondent during 2017 for issue of a passport. In the application preferred by the petitioner in this connection, he disclosed that his date of birth is 25/2/1951. The School Admission Register is the document produced by the petitioner along with the application to prove his date of birth. In fact, the petitioner had obtained a passport in the year 1986 on the basis of a declaration that he was born on 1/11/1951 and has also obtained reissue of the said passport during 1996. The petitioner, however, did not disclose the issue of the said passport in the application preferred during 2017. The application preferred by the petitioner for issue of fresh passport has not been processed by the respondent. The writ petition was filed, in the circumstances, alleging that the application is not being processed for want of birth certificate of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, his birth has not WPC No.38953 of 2017 2 been registered and therefore, he is unable to produce the birth certificate. Ext.P4 certificate issued by the panchayat has been produced by the petitioner in the writ petition to establish that his date of birth has not been registered under the relevant statute. The case of the petitioner is that in the circumstances, the respondent was not justified in refusing to process the application preferred by the petitioner for issue of fresh passport. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The essence of the contentions raised by the respondent in the statement is that the attempt of the petitioner is to get a new passport with a different date of birth; that in so far as the petitioner was holding a passport for almost 30 years with a different date of birth and in so far as the petitioner does not offer any explanation for having obtained the earlier passport with a different date of birth, and for having not applied for correction of the mistake in the passport as regards the date of birth, the application now preferred by WPC No.38953 of 2017 3 petitioner to obtain a new passport with a different date of birth cannot be treated as a genuine one.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.
4. In so far as the petitioner does not dispute the fact that he had obtained a passport earlier in the year 1986 with a different date of birth and obtained reissue of the said passport in the year 1996, it was only prudent on the part of the petitioner to disclose the said fact, even if the said passport is lost irrecoverably, in the application now preferred by the petitioner for issue of a fresh passport, especially since fresh passport is applied with a different date of birth. The petitioner has admittedly not disclosed in the application the fact that he was holding a passport earlier with a different date of birth. Further, the School Admission Register which is produced by the petitioner along with the present application for passport is a document that was available with the petitioner at the time when he applied for the passport in the year 1986. In other words, it is evident that the earlier passport with a different WPC No.38953 of 2017 4 date of birth was obtained by the petitioner on the strength of some other document, even while he had the School Admission Register indicating his correct date of birth. In so far as the petitioner has admitted that he had obtained an earlier passport, the petitioner should certainly be in a position to disclose, on what basis or under what circumstances the said passport was obtained with a different date of birth. There is no explanation from the petitioner as to the reasons or circumstances under which the earlier passport with a different date of birth was obtained by him. Had it been a case where the petitioner had disclosed in the application the existence of the earlier passport and the circumstances under which the earlier passport was obtained with a different date of birth and the reason why he did not apply for correction of the entry in the said passport relating to his date of birth during the tenure of the said passport, the application could have been treated as genuine. But since the petitioner has not adopted the said course, I am in agreement with the stand taken by the respondent that the application preferred by petitioner for WPC No.38953 of 2017 5 fresh passport cannot be treated as a genuine one. It is all the more so since the application is preferred almost 30 years after having obtained the earlier passport. It is now trite that only in genuine cases, fresh passports with different particulars can be issued by the authorities under the Passports Act. I am fortified in the said view by the decision of this Court in Jayakumar v. Regional Passport Officer (2015(3) KLT 158), paragraphs 20 to 23 of which 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 WPC No.38953 of 2017 6 details are acted upon in dealing with him, employing him and allowing him to travel and reside in the foreign countries.
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 WPC No.38953 of 2017 7 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 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 identity of their citizenship in India.
23. This Court has also been shown a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Nizar v. Union of India (2014 (4) KLT 609) where the restriction for enabling correction by PIA, only when the difference is two years, was struck down. The said decision is said to be challenged in appeal. In fact, this Court would agree with the principle on which the decision proceeds, since there is no rationale behind the restriction on the power conferred on the PIA to correct the date of birth only if the difference is within two years. The difference in date of birth be two years or twenty years, the power should be one to correct a bona fide mistake and that too within a reasonable time. Even a Civil Court declaration after many number of WPC No.38953 of 2017 8 years would lead to the applicant having possibly perpetrated a fraud on many others who acted upon the authenticated declaration of a Sovereign State as to the age status of its citizen. The authorities would do well to introspect on the observations made herein to make suitable amendment to the Circular.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs (true copy)