SCA/15786/2004 of UPADHYAY DHARMISHTABEN VISHNUSHANKER Vs REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER on 24 December 2004

1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO

to see the judgements?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO

of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?

-------------------------------------------------------------- UPADHYAY DHARMISHTABEN VISHNUSHANKER

Versus

REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER

-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:

1. Special Civil Application No. 15786 of 2004 MR RAMNANDAN SINGH for Petitioner No. 1 MR MA SHAIKH for Respondent No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent No. 1

-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Date of decision: 24/12/2004

ORAL JUDGEMENT

1. In this petition, notice is already issued for final disposal. Rule. Shri Shaikh learned Additional Standing Counsel waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authority to make necessary change in the date of birth from 01/06/1948 to 15/03/1949 and also to make necessary change in the name from Upadhyay Dharmisthaben Vishnubhai to Upadhyay Dharmisthaben Vishnushanker in the passport and further to issue fresh passport accordingly.

3. Shri Ramnanden Singh learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that through inadvertence and by mistake, her date of birth is mentioned as 01/06/1948 instead of 15/03/1949 and the name of the petitioner is also shown as Upadhyay Dharmisthaben Vishnubhai instead of Upadhyay Dharmisthaben Vishnushanker. He has submitted that in fact the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 15/03/1949 for which he has relied upon the certificate annexed at annexure-C to the petition, purported to be issued by the Mamlatdar, Karjan. He has further submitted that the petitioner has approached the respondent authority for making necessary correction, but the respondent authority has refused to entertain his request and to correct the aforesaid mistake.

4. Shri Shaikh learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent authority has submitted that only on the basis of the material given by the petitioner, the date of birth was recorded in the passport and the passport in the name of the petitioner was issued. He has further submitted that as such no change in the passport is effected, but for making any correction in the passport, a new passport is normally issued by the authority with correct details, if the authority is satisfied with the genuineness of the data to be corrected. He has further submitted that as such the petitioner is required to produce the certificate issued by the competent authority under Section 12 and 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 ["the Act" for short] and the document which is produced at annexure-C to the petition cannot be considered for making necessary correction.

4. Having heard the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances and also the material placed on record, the respondent is directed to look into the case of the petitioner on the basis of the evidence already adduced or which may be adduced by the petitioner in support of her case and on production of necessary certificate issued by the competent authority issued under Section 12 and 17 of the Act, the request of the petitioner shall be considered as mentioned above. The respondent shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law after considering the relevant evidence adduced before him and on production of the aforesaid certificate and shall pass an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible.

5. As the respondent authority will have to undertake the exercise of scrutinizing the case of the petitioner afresh because of the default committed by the petitioner in not placing correct facts at an earlier point of time, a sum of Rs. 5,000=00 [Rs. Five Thousand Only] is ordered to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent authority by way of costs. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. “Direct service is permitted.”

�����[M.R.SHAH,J.]

/phalguni/