High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/15594/2017disposed of

Rakesh Kumar v. Union Of India And ORS

2017-10-06Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath2 pages

Manoj Kumar 2017.10.12 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.15594 of 2017 #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15594 of 2017 Date of Order: 06.10.2017 Rakesh Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and Ors.

....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

Present:

Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Indresh Goel, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This petition is filed for seeking a direction to respondent No.2-Regional Passport Officer, Passport Office, Jalandhar for correcting the name of spouse of the petitioner in his passport (P.5) as Shital Rani instead of Kavita Rani. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his wife was earlier called as Kavita Rani, who had already got passport in the name of Shital Rani in which the petitioner is recorded as her husband.

Sh. Indresh Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Regional Passport Office has submitted that there is no difficulty insofar as the correction qua the name of the spouse of the petitioner in his passport is concerned, but respondent No.2 is not issuing passport to the petitioner for other reasons. However, it is also a matter of fact that no such order has

CWP No.15594 of 2017 #2# been passed by respondent No.2 of not issuing passport to him. Since this case only pertains to the prayer for change of spouse name in the passport of the petitioner and the counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 has stated in so many words that the name of the spouse of the petitioner may be changed from Kavita Rani to Shital Rani in the passport of the petitioner, therefore, this dispute is over. However, it is upto respondent No.2 to issue passport to the petitioner with the correct name of his spouse. In case, it is not to be issued, respondent No.2 shall pass a specific order and convey to the petitioner so that the petitioner may take up his remedy, in accordance with law. Needful shall be done by respondent No.2 within a period of one month. Disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

October 06, 2017 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No