P. Uma vs The Regional Passport Officer, Sastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Madras

S.M. Ali Mohamed, J.—By consent of both the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal. The petitioner herein has been granted

passport bearing No. 16687/1984 issued by the respondent. The petitioner states that she is a B.Sc., (Home Science) graduate and did her post

graduation in the year 1980. Now she is employed as a Dietician- General in the Government Stanley Hospital at Madras, and she wants to pursue

her higher education in Canada. She has further stated that her correct date of birth is 26-8-1958 whereas her date of birth in the passport is

stated as 25-8-1958 by inadvertence as she applied for her passport through a travel agent who by mistake has given her date of birth as

25.8.1958, instead of the correct date of birth being 26-8-1958. After the expiry of ten years, that is after the period of the passport had expired,

the petition has filed a fresh application for issue of passport. In the fresh application dated 4-2-1993 in column 6 of the Form, the petitioner has

stated about the change of date of birth from 25-8-1958 to 26-8-1958. It is stated by the petitioner that the application dated 14.2.1994 was not

disposed of by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent

herein to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 26-8-1958 in column relating to the date of birth in the passport of the petitioner.

It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that in all her certificates such as degree certificate, correct date of birth is given as

26.8.1958 and by inadvertence ,the travel agent, through ''whom she applied her passport, has given her date of birth as 25.8.1958 and the same

should be corrected by the respondent and the correct date of birth of the petitioner as 26.8.1958 should be stated in the passport.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein, the respondent has stated that as per the instruction of the Ministry of

External Affairs, New Delhi, if a passport, holder applies for change of date of birth, he/she should be advised to produce before the Passport

Authority the Original copy of the Declaratory Order issued by Competent court directing the Passport Authority to effect change of date of birth

in his/her passport. It is further submitted that the passports are issued under S. 5 of the Passport Act, 1967 hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''

and as per S. 5(2) of the Act, on receipt of an application, the Passport Authority, after making such enquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary

and subject to the other provisions of the Act, issues the Passport for travel with necessary endorsements. It is submitted that the power is

exercised by the Passport issuing authority under S. 5(2) of the Act is a quasi-judicial power, and once this power is exercised, there is no

provision in the Act for the issuing Authority to review or to revise its own grant or order. In view of the same the Passport Issuing Authority are

insisting whenever a request for change of date of birth is made by an applicant, to produce the original copy of the declaratory order issued by the

competent Magistrate. There is some force in the contention of the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel to the effect that the

power exercised by the Passport Issuing Authority under S. 5(2) of the Act is a quasi-judicial power and once this power is exercised, there is no

provision in the Act for issuing authority to review or revise its own grant or order, and the Act does not confer the power to review or revise the

said order to the Passport Issuing Authority. I am of the view that wherever there are clerical mistakes or mistakes due to inadvertence which do

not go to the root on merit of the matter, it is always open to the authority empowered to issue passports under S. 5(2) of the Act, to correct such

mistakes and such a power is inherent in exercising of such function. In this connection a reference may be made to S. 14 of the General Clauses

Act 1897 which reads as follows:

Where, by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any power is conferred, then unless a different intention

appears that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires.

It is clear from a reading of the S. 14 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 that if power is conferred by any Central Act or Regulation then, unless a

different intention appears that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. Further, the Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank v.

Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others (1981 Lab I.C.I55) at 158 has observed as follows:-

The expression ''review'' is used in two distinct senses, namely, (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to

set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is

one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense that the Court in Narshi Thakershi''s case held that no review lies on

merits unless a statute specifically provides tor it, obviously when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by

the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the above of its process, and such power inheres in every Court or Tribunal.

Thus there is a distinction between a procedural review and a review on merits. A procedural review is either inherent or implied in a court, a

tribunal or a quasi-judicial authority to set aside palpably erroneous order passed under misapprehension by it. A review on merits can be

corrected only when specific power of review or revisions is conferred by the statute in authority concerned. Therefore, I am of the view that the

Passport Issuing Authority has got ample power to correct the clerical mistakes and errors due to inadvertence which do not go into the root of the

matter and which are procedural review inherent and implied in such power under S. 5 of the Act.

In the instant case, the petitioner has stated that in all her original certificates, such as, degree certificate, issued by the Madras University, the

date of birth of the petitioner is stated as 26.8.1958 only. Even in her other certificates and service records her date of birth is given as 26.8.1958.

It is the definite case of the petitioner that the error in the date of birth has occurred due to the inadvertence by the Travel Agent who applied for

her earlier Passport. Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the mistake is one of the inadvertence and does not go to

the root of the matter, or merits of the case and as such the respondent has got power to ratify such mistakes. In view of the above, it is open to

the petitioner to file fresh application to the respondent for issue of passport giving the correct date of birth and give reasons for the mistakes that

has taken place. It is for the respondent to consider application of the petitioner in accordance with law, and pass necessary orders. With the

above observations this writ petition is dismissed. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been given

provisional admission in Nursing Course in Canada in the University of Saskatchewan and she has to leave India and reach Canada in the first

week of September, 1994. In view of the above reason, the respondent shall dispose of the application expeditiously.