Telangana High Court
WP/33352/2010 of Ramayyagari Nitish Chandra Reddy Vs The Union of India on 30 December 2010
MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.33354 of 2010 DT. 30.12.2010 Between: Ramayyagari Nitish Chandra Reddy … Petitioner And Union of India and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K Raghuveer Reddy Counsel for respondent: Mr Ramanujam The Court made the
DT.30.12.2010
Between: Ramayyagari Nitish Chandra Reddy … Petitioner AndUnion of India and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri K Raghuveer Reddy Counsel for respondent: Mr Ramanujam The Court made the following ORDER:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner, being minor represented by his father/natural guardian,filed this writ petition to declare the action of the second respondent/RegionalPassport Officer, Hyderabad, refusing to receive and consider the applicationof the petitioner for correction of his place of birth in his passport bearing No. G 9912063, as illegal and for consequential direction to receive theapplication and pass appropriate orders thereon.
It is the case of the petitioner that, he is a minor born on 10.6.1993 andpursuing studies at Hyderabad and a passport bearing No. G 9912063 wasissued to him in the year 2008, in which, his place of birth was noted asBodhan, Nizamabad district instead of Hyderabad. It is stated that in order torectify the place of birth, petitioner sought to file an application but therespondents declined to entertain the said application for no valid reason. The petitioner therefore has approached this Court for the aforesaid relief.
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner Mr Raghuveer Reddy andlearned Standing Counsel for respondents Mr Ramajunam.
As per Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 read with Rule 5 ofPassports Rules, 1980, the Passport authority is competent to makenecessary corrections in the passports already issued. In view of the saidprovision, the authority cannot refuse to entertain the applications.
In view of the same, the petitioner is permitted to file application in theprescribed manner and the second respondent is directed to receive the saidapplication and pass appropriate orders as early as possible preferablywithin a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
DATE: 30.12.2010TVK
_____________
NOUSHAD ALI,J
DT.30.12.2010