WP/933/2026 of Mrs.Tadepalli Chandana Vs The Union of India, on 24 February 2026

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of thc Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandarnus declarirrg thc impugned order dated 22.09.2025 issued by respondent No.2 rejecting the request of the petitioner for correction of her year o[ birth in Passport No.L65O3798 from "1987" to "1990" as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents to rc-issue the passport rvith the correct year of birth.

2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Grandhi, lcarned counscl for thc petitioner and Smt. NVR. Rajyalakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents. \ -d Dated:2 4.O2.2o26

3' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner,s actual date of birth is 03.05.1990 as reflected in her Birth certificate issued by chirara Mu,iciparity, Transfer certificate, Aadhaar oard, pAN card and Voter ID. He submits that while applying or passport in the year 2013, the petitioner had discontinued her education and was not conversant with Engrish. He submits that thr petitioner took assistance of a private typist noar thc passport clfrice who mistakcnry entered her year of birth as " 1987" instead of " 1 ggo" and the petitioner, being unaware of the said nristake, signed the application. He submits that the petitioner camc to know of the discrcpancy only n hile applying for re-issuance of her passport after expir.v in 2023.

4. l-earnt:d counser for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted five varid proof documents as prescribed under GSR 1170(E) dated 23.12.2016, which clearly estabrish her date of birtlL as 03.05.1990. He further submits that the rejection <lf petitioner's requr-'st sorery on the ground that more than five years have elapsed from the date of issuance of passport is arbitrar' arrd contrary to the office Memorandum dated

22. o9.2o16, which mandates consideration of genuine cases even beyond five 'ears. He further submits that non-correction of the I l

J date of birth would cause serious hardship and prejudice to the petitioner.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respcndents submit that the petitioner's original passport was issued in the year 2Ol3 showing the date of birth as O3.O5.|9BT based on documents furnished at that time. She submits that as per existing circular instructions, requests for change of date of birth after a lapse of five years from issuance of passport cannot ordinarily be entertained. She submits that the petitioner had signed the application and affidavit at the time of original issuance of passport and therefore is bound by the declarations made therein. She further submits that the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 was passed in accordance rvith applicable circular guidelines.

6. The Court has considered the submissiclns of learned c<lunsel [or either parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has producccl multiple ()overnmcnt issr-rcd documents including Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID and School Transfer Certificate reflecting her date of birth as 03.05.1990. The office Memorandum dated 22.o9.2o 16 clcarly provides that even in cases where more than five years have elapsed from issuance of passport, the Passport lssuing Authority .1 shall consider the explanation of the applicant and assess the genuinen<:ss of the claim and shall not reject such requests routinely. ln the prersent case, the impugned order revears that the petitioner's request was rejected solelv on the ground of lapse <lf five years, without examining the genuineness of the explanation or the authenticity of the supporting documents. The petitioner has offered a pletusible explanatio' that she was unaware of the incorrect e:ntry a.t trre time of original apprication and discovered thc mistakc only. at thc time of re-issuance. There is no material placed before this court to show any fraudulent intention or mlsrepresenta-tion on her part. Administrative auth<lrities are expected to 261 reasonably and in accordance with the guidelines governing thcm. Mechanical rejection without considering relevant factors renrlers the decision arbitrary. This court is therefore of the view th.t the impugned order cannot be sustained.

7. Accorclingl.y, thc writ petiticln is allorved. The impugned order dated 22.09 .2o2s uid.e File No. Hy tor6*42ogor24 issued by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the petitioner's request for correction of year of birth from "1987" to "1ggo" in accordance with the office Memorandum dated 22.09-2016. Upon verification of the genuineness of the documr:nts s;ubmittecl by tlre petitiorrer, the respondents shall re_ /

issue the passport with corrected year of birth, if othcnvisc in order. The said exercise shall be completed within a period o[ four

(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/ KARJUNA RAO ANT REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER To SA

1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, tvlinistry of External , South Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. The Regional Passport Officer, D.No.8-2-215 to 219, Near Prashanth Theatre, 2 Kummarguda, Secunderabad - 500003.

3. One CC to SRI G.RAJKUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

4. ONC CC tO SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies ----------'-7/ 1' \

HIGH COURT DATED: ?4 10212026

ORDER

WP.No.9il3 ot 2026 ALLOWINIG THE W.P WITHOUT'COSTS. \ THE S € 12 r{li 2rl75 Z P * ir'; C) t \\ ? a ,