Mohammed Akber Uddin v. The Union Of India
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
[ 3405 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA WRIT PETITION NO: 36857 OF 2024 Between:
Mohammed Akber Uddin, S/o. Mohammed Fakruddin, Occ. Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.8-14-95/8, Ansari Falaknuma Hyderabad - 500053.
aged about. 58 years, Road, Mustafa Nagar, ...PETITIONER AND The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary PSP Divjsion, Ministry of External Affairs Patiala House, Tilak Marg New Delhi - 110001. The Regional Passport Officer, D.No.8-2-2151o 219, Kummarguda, Secunderabad - 500003, Telangana.
Passport Seva Kendra, B-1-305/306, Anand Silicon Chip' Shaikpet Nala, ToliChowki, Hyderabad - 500008, Telangana.
a ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly like one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of Respondents No.2 and 3 in refusing to renew/reissue the original Passport of the Petitioner bearing No. E9386537, issued by the Respondent No.2 dated 17-06.2004 on the ground that the Date of Birth reflecting in Expired Passport and the Date of Birth reflecting in the documents(Aadhaar card and PAN Card) provided for the renewal of Passport are different and advised to furnish DOB modified id proof with correct particulars which is being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 ol the constitution of lndia and against the Passport Act,1967 and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to renew/reissue the Passport bearing No. E9386537 issued by
/ Respondent No.2 dated 17.06.2004 either by changing the Date of Birth as per the document (Aadhaar Card and PAN Card) provided for the renewal of / Passport or renew/reissue without effecting any change to the Date of Birth pending disposal of the writ petition.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent 2 and 3 to reneMreissue the Passport of the Petitioner bearing No. E9386537 issued by Respondent No.2 dated 17.06.2004 either by changing the Date of Birth as per the document (Aadhaar Card and PAN Card) provided for the renewal of Passport or renew/reissue without effecting any change to the Date of Birth pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD HASSAN Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLlclToR GEN. OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA UIRIT PETITION No.36857 0F 2024 Mr. Mohd Hassan, leained counsel appea.ring for the petitiotrer Mr. K.Mohan, leaaed counsel appearing for the respondcnts' ORDER:
The prayer in the writ petition itself is vague' The petiti''oner has prayed for renewal/reissue of the petitioner's passport by changing the petitioner's date of birth as per the Aadhaar Card and Pein Card but has also simultaneously prayed for renewal of passport without effecting any change to the petitioner's date of birth' The Court is unable to understand the prayer.
2.
The impugned document d'ated 24 'O9 '2024 issued by the Passport Seva Kendra contains the remarks of the Granting O{hcer' The remark is to the effect that the petitioner's passport is kept on { hold for the petitioner to submit two ID's with corrected details along withotherdocumentspertainingtothepetitioner'schangeofnarrre. 3.
Even on the documents pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is evident that the date of birth on the petitioner's expired passport is 06.06'1950 whereas the documents at Ex.P4 reflects the date of birth as O6'O6' 1966' 4.
The discrepancy in the two dates of birth is obvious and the Court sees no reason rvhy the petitioner should not produce relevant documents before the passport authorities for renewal of passport with a correct date of birth.
\
5.
The Oflice Memorandum dated 26.ll.2o15 placed by counsel for the petitioner in fact records at paragraph 4 that only bona frd.e claims of the applicants for correction of date of birth should be accepted and that to if the applications are submitted within a reasonable period of tim, it is clear that the orn""t """t the issuance of passport' Therefore, Memoraldum cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner. The petitioner,s passport adrr. t6.O6.2O14.
_ r"qoot,L,r L aomrttedly expired on 6.
The above reasons persuade this Cou writ petition. W.p.No.368S7 of 2024 is Interim orders, i1 any, shall stand applications are disposed of.
rt to dismiss the present accordingly dismissed.
vacated and all connected There shall be no order as to costs_ sD/ ASStsrsr{i T.JAYASREE REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII To, TJ PSK pff ff h."#$[?Btrr#JiBi,*J3i"ri;]o""",::;;:;** 2-
i HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212024 i 5 I u o+ o .b
ORDER
t$15 30 Jl\ii t WP.No.36857 of 2024 OEsPAl DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,/apf 2/