------------- This is an application filed by the petitioner directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Ernakulam to pass an order directing to correct the place of birth in the passport by allowing Crl.M.P.1954 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for that purpose under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is residing in the address mentioned in the passport and working in Newzealand and leaving India on 5.7.14 for his employment purpose. He is holding Indian passport number H610002655 issued by the second respondent which valid from 13.01.2010 to 12.01.2020. At the time of application for passport, the place of birth was mistakenly noted as Palakuzha Post, Koothattukulam, Ernakulam, Kerala-686 686. In fact he was born in Kuwait on 08.05.1983 while his mother was working as a nursery teacher in Kuwait. When the petitioner filed an application to the second respondent for correction to his place of birth in the passport along with Ext.P2 certificate, the second respondent, without considering the same, returned the application with endorsement as per the relevant instructions when a change of place of birth is sought to be made from one State to another or India to abroad or vice versa, the applicant has to obtain a court order and the RPO has to contest such claim. On that basis petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1954 of 2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Ernakulam for issuing a direction to the second respondent to make necessary correction in the passport in respect of his place of birth. But the learned Magistrate, without considering the application and passing any orders, posted the case to 24.6.2014. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:-
to issue direction to 2nd respondent, after considering Ext.P6 application to correct the place of birth as Kuwait in the passport of the petitioner on or before 04.07.2014 and to carry out necessary corrections in the passport of the petitioner, pending disposal of the original petition(Crl)
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only requirement is to give a declaration that his place of birth is Kuwait instead of Palakuzha Post, Koothattukulam of Ernakulam District which was wrongly noted in the passport at the time when he obtained the passport and since the Court order has been required for that purpose by the passport officer, he moved the Magistrate Court for that purpose. But the Magistrate has not passed any orders and keeping the petition pending. Further, even in the decision reported in (Abu V Regional Passport Officer) 2008(1) KLT 992 and in (Nazar V.Union of India), 2013(4)KLT 34 this Court has observed that only if it is necessary that such an order is to be obtained from the court and it is not always necessary for the passport officer to direct the petitioner to approach the civil court for that purpose.
5. The application was opposed by the Assistant Solicitor General of India on the ground that in case of change of place of birth as per the instructions, Court order in this aspect is mandatory.
6. The question as to whether the Magistrate has got power to give such a direction or give declaration has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in (Raveendran Pillai V Vice Consul Consulate General of India, Dubai) 2011 (3) KLT 652 that for getting a declaratory orders applicant will have to move competent civil courts and not Judicial Magistrate Court. So even if any direction is given by this Court to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate Court which is now pending as Crl.M.P.1954/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Ernakulam, in view of the dictum laid on in the above decision that the Magistrate cannot give any direction as sought for in that petition. However, this will not be a bar for the second respondent to reconsider the application again and pass appropriate orders if such a request has been made by the petitioner in this regard taking into consideration, the observation made in (Nazar V.Union of India) 2013 (4) KLT 34 and in (Abu V Regional Passport Officer) 2008(1) KLT 992. If such an application is filed before the second respondent then the second respondent is at liberty to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
With the above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV