- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.9.2013 (Annexure P-7) by which respondent No. 2 has refused to issue passport to him in the name of his natural parents.
(2.) In short, the petitioner was born on 18.07.1988 to Smt. Sharanjit Kaur and Bhupinderjit Singh (since deceased). He was given in adoption by his natural mother to Sadhu Singh son of Iqbal Singh and Iqbal Kaur wife of Sadhu Singh vide registered adoption deed 4.4.2002. When the petitioner became major, he filed a suit for declaration challenging the said adoption deed as illegal. In the said suit, the claim of the petitioner was admitted by defendant No. 1 (Sharanjit Kaur, his natural mother), the other two defendants (adoptive parents) were proceeded against ex parte as they did not appear despite notice. The Civil Court decreed the suit on 23.4.2012. The relevant portion of the decree read as under :- "It is ordered that suit of the plaintiff is succeeds and the same is hereby decreed and the adoption deed dated 04.04.2002 claimed to be executed between the defendant No. 1 on one side and defendants No. 2 and 3 on the other side, is illegal, null and void, having no effect on the rights of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and further defendants No. 2 and 3 a re restrained from claiming any right over the plaintiff on the basis of said alleged adoption deed dated 04.04.2002."
(3.) It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner was already having a passport bearing No. E6093935 as a son of his adoptive parents Sadhu Singh (adoptive father) and Iqbal Kaur (adoptive mother), which was issued on 4.9.2003 and had a life of ten years upto 03.09.2013. After the decree was passed, the petitioner filed an application to respondent No. 2 on 12.12.2012 to reissue the passport in the name of his natural parents in view of the decree dated 23.4.2012. Since respondent No. 2 did not pay any heed to his request, therefore, he served a legal notice and thereafter filed Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 14549 of 2013, which was disposed on 11.7.2013 with a direction to respondent No. 2 to pass necessary order on his application. In consequence thereof, the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 06.09.2013 on the ground that the said decree was inter se between the parties in which respondent No. 2 was not a party, therefore, the said decree cannot be looked into. Hence, this petition has been filed against the said order dated 6.9.2013.;