Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Kamalakshi Chandra Lokesh vs Union Of India

High Court Of Telangana|24 July, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.9229 OF 2014 Date: 24.07.2014 Between :
Kamalakshi Chandra Lokesh, s/o. K.Muni Chandra Sekhar, Aged about 21 years, Occu: Student, R/o.D.No.18-1/196, Yasoda Nagar, K.T. Road, Tirupati, Chittoor district.
… Petitioner and Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and another.
… Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.9229 OF 2014 ORDER:
Petitioner was granted Passport bearing No.F2266540 on 07.02.2005, which was valid upto 06.02.2010. In the said Passport, the name of the petitioner was shown as Kamakshi Chandra Sekhar Lokesh, whereas his actual name is Kamakshi Chandra Lokesh and his date of birth was recorded as 31.10.1993 instead of 31.10.1992. Petitioner was minor when application was made for issuance of passport and due to mistake or oversight, wrong declarations were made. The passport was granted to him in the year 2005 and expired on 06.02.2010. On 12.02.2014, petitioner has applied for renewal which would otherwise mean issuance of fresh passport. Along with application for issuance of renewal/fresh passport, petitioner has also requested for correction of entry as with reference to his date of birth in the passport records as 31.10.1992 instead of 31.10.1993 and correction of his name. As directed by the respondents, petitioner has published a notice in the newspaper on 17.12.2013 regarding the corrections sought by him. On 26.02.2014, petitioner filed additional documents showing his original date of birth and correct name. The application for issuance of fresh passport is yet to be processed and passport is not issued. No communication is given to the petitioner assigning reasons for not granting him passport. Petitioner was orally informed to obtain decree from the Civil Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
3. As seen from the record, when application for grant of passport was submitted in the year 2005, petitioner was a minor. By the time he attained the age of majority, his passport expired. He, therefore, applied afresh for a passport in the year 2014. After issuance of earlier passport, the petitioner completed his 10th Class and he was issued Secondary School Certificate.
The entries in the Secondary School Certificate disclose his date of birth as 31.10.1992. The other certificates also disclose the date of birth as 31.10.1992. Along with the application for renewal of passport and correction of date of birth and name, petitioner enclosed Secondary School Certificate, Driving licence and his date of birth certificate issued by the Tirupati Municipal Corporation. All these documents would disclose the correct date of birth of the petitioner as 31.10.1992. As seen from the averments and the documents enclosed, petitioner attained age of majority in the year 2011, by which time the earlier passport was already expired. In the year 2014, petitioner applied for renewal/fresh passport giving relevant particulars.
4. In the peculiar facts of this case, it cannot be said that there was unreasonable delay on the part of the petitioner to bring to the notice of the passport authority that wrong entry was made against the date of birth column. The documents relied upon by the petitioner are the documents which are the basis to determine the date of birth and unless authenticity is disputed, the same cannot be ignored for the purpose of carrying out the corrections in the date of birth entry in the passport. Thus, in the facts of this case, the second respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 12.02.2014 along with material furnished by the petitioner in support of his contention that his actual date of birth is 31.10.1992 and wrong declaration was made at the time of applying for passport in the year 2005 by his grand father. Said application be considered without subjecting the petitioner to obtain a decree from the Civil Court regarding the correct date of birth. An appropriate decision shall be taken regarding correction of entry in date of birth in passport record and be communicated to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the petitioner is entitled to have his passport renewed/to issue new passport, the same shall be issued.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 24.07.2014 Note:
Issue C.C. in two days.
B/o.
kkm Oval:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Writ Petition No.9229 OF 2014 Date: 24-07-2014 kkm
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Kamalakshi Chandra Lokesh vs Union Of India

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
24 July, 2014
Judges
  • P Naveen Rao