Madras High Court
WP(MD)/23770/2026 of Rakku Vs The Regional Passport Officer on 26 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 23770 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR
RAMAMOORTHY
WP(MD) No. 23770 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011148622026}
AND
WMP(MD) No. 17661 of 2026
Rakku
W/o.Pethanan,
No.2/56, Vazhimarichan village,
Parthibanoor Post,
Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Regional Passport Officer
O/o.The Regional Passport Office,
Bharathi Ula Veethi,
Race Course Road,
Madurai - 625 002.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED
MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Direction, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned communication dated 13.02.2026
issued by the respondent vide Letter Ref. SCN/1053749660/26 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to re-issue passport by changing his date of birth as 01.03.1983 instead of 01.03.1975 in the application dated 10.02.2026 bearing File No.
MD1076368740926 within a stipulated time period in accordance with law and pass such further or other orders as this Honble court may deem __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:34 pm )
WP(MD) No. 23770 of 2026
fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s C.Senthil Murugan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan Learned
CGSC for The Respondent
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 had applied for and obtained a passport on 06.06.2017 by declaring her date of birth as 01.03.1975. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for correction of her date of birth in the passport as 01.03.1983 instead of 01.03.1975. Said request was rejected under impugned communication dated 13.02.2026 on the ground that the difference between the age recorded earlier and the correction requested for is eight years.
2. Relying on the birth certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth was erroneously recorded earlier. He relies upon order dated 30.07.2025 of this Court in Manimaran Mahalingam v. Ministry of External Affairs and another, W.P. No.16250 of 2025.
3. Responding to the above contentions, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner made a declaration at the __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:34 pm )
WP(MD) No. 23770 of 2026 time of applying for the earlier passport. In said declaration, it was stated that the petitioner and her husband are living together as a married couple since 08.04.1995. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's age would have been only about 12 years at the time of marriage, if the date of birth, as per the birth certificate, were to be taken into consideration. He also submits that any request for correction made after five years cannot be considered as per the circular issued in this regard. He relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.1510 of 2018, H. Albert v. The Regional Passport Officer, judgment dated 08.11.2018.
4. The record shows that the passport was issued to the petitioner on 06.06.2017 and that the petitioner has put the passport to use for several years thereafter. Less than a year remains of the validity period of the passport. As pointed out by learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, the declaration made by the petitioner at the time of issuance of the passport casts doubt on the claim that the correct date of birth is 01.03.1983.
5. In these circumstances, no interference is warranted with the impugned communication. This order will not, however, stand in the way __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:34 pm )
WP(MD) No. 23770 of 2026 of the petitioner applying for a fresh passport after the expiry of the validity period of the current passport. Any such application shall be considered on merits after examining all necessary documents in that regard.
6. This writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PKN __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:34 pm )
WP(MD) No. 23770 of 2026 To The Regional Passport Officer O/o.The Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai - 625 002. __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:34 pm )
WP(MD) No. 23770 of 2026 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. PKN WP(MD) No. 23770 of 2026 AND WMP(MD) No. 17661 of 2026 26-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:34 pm )