IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.35729 of 2013 Between:
Suman Gundampally, S/o. Rajubai, Aged about 25 years, R/o. H.No.1-3, Thongakuru, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District.
.. Petitioner AND The Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, Kummaraguda, Secunderabad – 500 003.
.. Respondent The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.35729 of 2013 ORDER:
The petitioner was granted Passport bearing No.E. 4952992 on 10.04.2003. In the passport records, the date of birth was recorded as 18.11.1981. The case of the petitioner is that his actual date of birth is 11.02.1988 and erroneously, in the passport records it was shown as 18.11.1981. The petitioner prosecuted his 10th class and appeared in the examinations conducted by the Board of Secondary School Education in May, 2003 and he was successful. A certificate of pass was issued on 03.07.2003. The certificate recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 11.02.1988. The entry made in the Secondary School Certificate is the basis for determination of date of birth in all records.
2. At the time of making an application for issuance of passport, the petitioner was a minor. He was not aware of the consequences of a wrong declaration. Having realized that a wrong entry was made in the passport, the petitioner applied for correction of his passport.
3. Initially, this writ petition is instituted alleging that in spite of submission of an application for correction of date of birth, no orders are passed even though there is an urgency of the petitioner to travel abroad. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Passport authority passed orders on 01.07.2013 which was produced before this Court. The petitioner amended the prayer assailing the order of rejection, dated 01.07.2013.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the application was submitted for grant of passport, he was a minor and based on the instructions of his elder members of the family, the application was made and a declaration was given as if the petitioner was born on 18.11.1981 and that he was not a minor. The petitioner was given to understand that such a declaration was made since there was no other evidence available at that time in support of the date of birth of the petitioner.
5. Thus, it was a bona fide mistake and, therefore, the request of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth ought to have been considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the order impugned herein is a non- speaking order. It does not contain reasons. The instructions furnished to the learned Standing Counsel now refer to other grounds for rejection of the application for correction of date of birth. The contents of the order cannot be supplemented by way of an affidavit or by way of instructions to the learned Standing Counsel. The order being non-speaking order, it is liable to be set aside on that ground alone.
6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that since the difference in date of birth recorded is more than seven years, it is mandatory for the concerned person to obtain a decree from the civil Court regarding the correct age and then only the passport records can be corrected.
7. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned is a non-speaking order. No reasons are assigned for rejection of the application. It only directs the petitioner to approach the civil Court and obtain a decree regarding the correct date of birth. Thus, the order is bereft of reasons and, therefore, cannot be sustained. The order of rejection of application for correction of date of birth is by a statutory authority and such rejection adversely affect the rights and privileges of a person to hold passport. Any order of statutory authority affecting the rights of an individual should contain reasons for not accepting the request, in this case the request for correction of date of birth in the passport records.
8. Thus, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad (respondent) with a direction to consider the application submitted by the petitioner along with proof submitted by him in support of his claim that his date of birth is 11.02.1988 and not 18.11.1981 and consider the same and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims.
9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 16th April, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.35729 of 2013 Date: 16th April, 2014 KL