SWAPNA SIJU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Regional Passport Officer, Cochin had on 23.4.1983 issued a passport bearing No. U159810 to the petitioner, then a minor, wherein her date of birth was shown as 29.4.1974. After the validity of the said passport expired, the petitioner submitted an application dated 30.3.2009 under the Tatkal scheme for the issue of a new passport. Along with the said application, the passport initially issued to the petitioner on 23.4.1983 was also enclosed. In the application for a new passport, the petitioner had given her date of birth as 29.4.1975 instead of 29.4.1974, the date of birth given in the earlier passport. The petitioner states that she was born on 29.4.1975 and that in the school records and in the driving licence issued to her, her date of birth is shown as 29.4.1975, which is her correct date of birth. On noticing the disparity in the date of birth, the Passport Officer called upon the petitioner to furnish particulars regarding the correct date of birth. It is submitted that the petitioner thereupon went over to the Regional Passport Office, Cochin and clarified that the application on which a passport was issued to her on 23.4.1983 was one submitted by her uncle as her parents were abroad and that the date of birth might have been wrongly given at that time. The petitioner states that as her birth has not been registered, she produced photostat copies of the relevant page of her Secondary School Leaving Certificate and the Driving Licence before the second respondent and also explained to him that she was a minor when the earlier passport was issued, that her parents were at that time abroad, that her uncle had applied for the passport and that the mistake might have been committed by him. The Passport Officer, Cochin was however not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner. He thereupon sent Ext. P3 letter dated 14.9.2009 informing the petitioner that as there was no response to the queries from the Passport Office, her application for passport has been closed. She was informed that she can apply afresh if she so desires after complying with the formalities. This writ petition was thereupon filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to issue a fresh passport to her under the Tatkal scheme. The petitioner submits that the rejection of her application for passport on the ground that the date of birth in the passport issued to her when she was a minor is different from the date of birth given in the application for a new passport. The petitioner contends that as she was born before 26.1.1989 the second respondent cannot insist that she should produce the extract from the Register of Births to prove her date of birth.

(2.) The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents has filed a statement dated 12.11.2009 and an additional statement dated 2.12.2009. It is stated that as the date of birth given in the application for a fresh passport was at variance with the date of birth in the passport issued to the petitioner on 23.4.1983, she was asked to produce an extract from the Birth Register to prove her date of birth and as the petitioner did not respond, her application was closed. It is also stated that if the petitioner requires a passport to be issued showing the date of birth 29.4.1975, she will have to apply afresh with supporting documents.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is not in dispute that a passport was initially issued to the petitioner on 27.4.1983 and that the petitioner was at that point of time admittedly a minor. Even if her date of birth is taken as 29.4.1974 as a minor aged nine years, it can safely be presumed that the first application for passport would have been filled up and submitted either by her parents or a near relation and that the petitioner would not have on her own made the entry regarding the date of birth in the application for passport. As the petitioner's parents were abroad, as stated by her, her uncle would have made the application. The petitioner cannot therefore be held personally responsible for the entry regarding her date of birth. In the year 2001, the Ministry of External Affairs had issued a Circular, No. VI/401/2/5/2001 dated 18.4.2001 wherein it was inter alia stipulated that where the initial entry regarding the date of birth has been made on the basis of a supporting document issued by a competent authority namely, school/educational authority and the applicant subsequently requests for a change in the date of birth on the basis of a certificate issued by another competent authority, namely, the Municipal authority, resulting in conflicting sources of proof of date of birth, the Passport Issuing Authority should direct the applicant to obtain an order from the civil court certifying the valid date of birth. It was also stipulated that where the applicant is seeking clarification or correction of a mistake in the entry regarding the date of birth or place of birth in the passport, the Passport Issuing Authority may after verifying/satisfying himself, effect the necessary correction treating the same as a technical correction without an order from the competent civil court. It was further stipulated that if the competent authority which issued the birth certificate or the school authorities registering the date of birth were to issue a subsequent correction or amendment, in such cases also, the Passport Issuing Authority can effect necessary amendment in the passport without insisting on a court order.