Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: Notice No. 561 N 2020 Shashikant Vs State
CNR – MHMM18-003007-2020
ORDER BELOW EXH.-1
1. Perused the record. Heard Ld. Advocate Shri. R. C. Pandey, for the
applicant.
2. Nobody present on behalf of respondent. No say filed.
3. The present application is filed, for correction of date of birth, in the
passport issued by respondent, as 08.04.1965, instead of 08.04.1960. It is the
case of the applicant that he is holding Indian Passport since year 1994.
Initially it was issued as passport, bearing No.A2313975, dated 25.10.1994.
Later on it was renewed bearing No.H9671442, issued on 01.10.2010. The
said renewed passport also expired on 31.01.2020. In this passport also the
date of birth of the applicant is mentioned as 08.04.1960, which should be
08.04.1965. Due to oversight the said mistake in date of birth occurred, in the
passports, issued from time to time. On 29.01.2020, applicant approached
respondent for renewal of passport by filing application, bearing
No.SU1074610109620. Respondent issued notice dated 13.02.2020 and
raised objection about the discrepancy in the date of birth. The explanation
was called within 30 days. Accordingly, applicant submitted his explanation
and also filed various documents with the respondent in support of his
explanation. He claimed that the wrong entry done by respondent due to
oversight. But respondent not agreed to it and denied to correct the date of
birth and directed to obtain court order for correction of date of birth. Hence,
this application.
4. During arguments in addition to contents of the application and
affidavit filed in its support, applicant relied on various documents,
mentioning his date of birth as 08.04.1965. He also relied on circular issued by
-- 1 of 3 --
Notice No. 561 N 2020 Shashikant Vs State
CNR – MHMM18-003007-2020
Ministry of External Affairs, India, bearing No. VI/401/2/5/2001, dated 26.11.2015, by
way of which certain guidelines were issued to Passport Issuing Authorities
while considering the applications for change/correction of dates of birth
entries in the passports. He also relied on the judgment of Kerala High Court
in the case of Jaikumar Vs. Union of India and others (Writ Petition No. 9073 of 2015)
and judgment of our parent High Court in the case of Kondram Vallapil Srinivas
Vs. Union of India and others (Writ Petition No. 3746 of 2013, dated 29.10.2013).
5. The main contention of the applicant is that at the time of renewal of
passport on second time, while considering his application bearing
No.SU1074610109620, dated 29.01.2020, respondent refused to accept
explanation and asked for order of the court with required direction to correct
the date of birth. However, the record shows that only explanation was called
by respondent, vide its notice dated 13.02.2020, no such court order was
sought. Thus, the request for correction of date of birth was under
consideration of the respondent when this application was filed. The pleading
to the effect that respondent asked for order of the court will required
direction is not correct. Despite making specific query to the effect that
whether applicant is having any documentary evidence in support of such
pleadings, nothing was produced. In view of circular issued by Ministry of
External Affairs, India, bearing No. VI/401/2/5/2001, dated 26.11.2015, the respondent
on its own after considering the explanation, if any, and the documents filed
on record, can correct the date of birth.
6. On 07.01.2022, the applicant prayed for taking the matter on file of
today's board. While making said prayer he filed another copy of notice
(Reminder), issued by respondent dated 24.11.2021. Thus, copy of the said
notice is on record. The said copy of notice reflect that the applicant is
-- 2 of 3 --
Notice No. 561 N 2020 Shashikant Vs State
CNR – MHMM18-003007-2020
directed to produce proper clarification/explanation about status of the court
case, without which the requested service can not be provided to him. It
means rather than filing proper explanation there and before exercising of
proper jurisdiction by respondent, the applicant approached this court.
7. The directions sought by applicant is having serious consequences. The
applicant sought correction in his date of birth after 20 years of issuance of
passport. The thorough inquiry is necessary. In the facts and circumstances
discussed above, the respondent is the proper authority to consider the request
in view of circular issued by Ministry of External Affairs, India, bearing No.
VI/401/2/5/2001, dated 26.11.2015, and not this court. Without final decision of
the respondent on this aspect this court is not able to consider the prayer. The
application is premature. For these reasons the citation relied by Ld. Advocate
of our parent High Court, is not in his aid. Therefore, order :
ORDER
Application is rejected.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 19.01.2022 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
-- 3 of 3 --