Telangana High Court
WP/40054/2012 of MOHAMMED SALAVUDDIN, Vs THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40054 of 2012 DATED: 28.12.2012 Between: Mohammed Salavuddin .. Petitioner and The Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad. .. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. K. Lakshman Counsel for the Respondent : -- The Court made the
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.40054 of 2012
DATED:28.12.2012
Between:
Mohammed Salavuddin
.. Petitioner
andThe Regional Passport Officer,Secunderabad. .. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. K. LakshmanCounsel for the Respondent : -- The Court made the following:-
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.
O R D E R:
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has notbeen receiving his application for issuance of a fresh passport withcorrect date of birth. According to the petitioner, in the passport issuedon 01.01.2003, his date of birth was wrongly shown as 02.05.1982.When the petitioner allegedly approached the respondent, the latter’soffice refused to entertain the application by insisting that the petitionershall obtain an order from the Court for entertaining such application.
Clause (c) of Circular __/401/2/5/2001, dated 18-4-2001, issuedby the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, inter aliaprovides as under:
“Where the initial entry has been made on thebasis of a supportive document issued by onecompetent authority i.e.,School/educationalauthority and the applicant subsequently requestsfor a change on the basis of a certificate issued byanother competent authority i . e . , municipalauthorities resulting in conflicting sources of validproof, the PIA should direct the applicant to obtain acivil order from a competent Court of jurisdiction,certifying the valid date of birth/place of birth.”
The respondent is, therefore, directed to receive the petitioner’sapplication and consider the same in the light of the above-mentionedcircular. If the respondent is convinced that the entry of the petitioner’sdate of birth in the existing passport is not supported by any certificateissued by the competent authority, he shall consider the SSCcertificate of the petitioner, on which he is placing reliance, and issuefresh passport with the date mentioned in the said certificate as thepetitioner’s date of birth. In a converse situation, the respondent shall pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner.He shall complete this exercise within a period of one month from thedate of receipt of the application from the petitioner.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.50844 of 2012 filed for interim relief isdismissed as infructuous.
28[th] December, 2012VV
______________________________
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY