E. Ram Sundar vs The Passport Officer

M. Venugopal, J.—Heard both sides

According to the Petitioner, in the early 2012, he had decided to search for a job in abroad and perused his Passport and found that the date of birth was mentioned as 16.09.1989 against the column of date of birth instead of 08.05.1990.

Soon after, he rushed to the office of the respondent and informed the variation of date of birth in the passport. Subsequently, she was advised to approach the Court to correct the date of birth as 08.05.1990. He approached the competent Judicial Magistrate and after fulfilling all the requisite procedures, the Learned Judicial Magistrate of Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District in Crl.M.P.No. 3215 of 2013, dated 29.05.2013 passed orders by issuing necessary directions to the Municipal Commissioner to issue birth certificate to him. Accordingly on 5.6.2013, he was issued with a Birth Certificate.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the respondent had passed orders on 16.09.2014 to the following effect(Advised for court direction to change the date of birth). This order passed by the respondent, according to the Petitioner, is not legally tenable one because of the simple reason that in the instant case on hand, the Petitioner had already approached the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District and obtained necessary orders in Crl.M.P.No. 3215 of 2013, dated 29.05.2013 in the subject- matter in issue and in pursuance to the order so passed, the Petitioner was issued with Birth Certificate on 5.6.2013. Under such circumstance, the impugned order passed by the respondent on 16.09.2014 is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the Petitioner had made representations on 18.12.2013 and 13.09.2014 for correction of the entry pertaining to her date of birth and consequently prayed for issuance of a new passport to her by recording her real and correct date of birth, namely 08.05.1990 instead of 16.09.1989.

In view of the fact that the Petitioner had already approached the Criminal Court as referred to supra and obtained necessary orders on 29.05.2013 in Crl.M.P.No. 3215 of 2013 and subsequently when the Petitioner was issued with Birth Certificate on 5.6.2013, then this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order, dated 16.09.2014 passed by the respondent in advising the Petitioner to obtain court direction to change the date of birth is clearly an illegal and invalid one in the eye of law. As such, this Court to prevent the aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice, sets aside the impugned order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the respondent. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. The impugned order, dated 16.09.2014 passed by the respondent is set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Writ Petition. Further, the respondent is directed to look into the representation of the Petitioner, dated 18.12.2013 and 13.09.2014 in a fair, just and dispassionate manner and to pass a reasoned, speaking order on merits by ascribing necessary qualitative and quantitative reasons and to do the needful in the matter in issue, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Petitioner is also advised to lend his cooperation and assistance to the respondent in connection with the consideration of his representations, dated 18. 12.2013 and 13.09.2014.