Vava Rowther v. The Regional Passport Officer

O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reissue the passport by changing the date of birth from 02.07.1972 to 20.07.1975 in line with the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.27 of 2017.

¶2The case of the petitioner is that he was issued a passport during the year 1994 and at that point of time, the date of birth was entered in the passport as 02.07.1972. The passport was also renewed from time to time. The petitioner realized that the date of birth of the petitioner has been wrongly entered and instead of mentioning the date of birth as

20.07.1975, it was mentioned as 02.07.1972. In view of the same, the petitioner approached the respondent seeking for the alteration in the date of birth. The same was not acceded by the respondent.

¶3In view of the above, the petitioner filed a suit before the District Munsif Court, Mudukulathur in O.S.No.27 of 2017 against the respondent seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that his correct date of birth is 20.07.1975 and for a mandatory injunction to direct the respondent to issue passport. This suit was not contested by the respondent and the suit was decreed through Judgment and Decree dated

06.11.2017. The relevant portions in the Judgment are extracted hereunder: "thjp jug;gpy; jhth th.rh.M.1 gj;jhk; tFg;G

kjpg;ngz;

rhd;wpjo;

FwpgPL nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. mjpy; thjpapd; gpwe;j Njjp 20.07.1975 vd Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. mNjNghy; th.rh.M.2 gd;dpnuz;lhk; tFg;G kjpg;ngz; rhd;wpjo;> th.rh.M.3 gpwg;G rhd;wpjo; Mfpatw;wpy; thjpapd; gpwe;j Njjp

20.07.1975 vd Fwpg;gplg;gl;L cs;sJ. th.rh.M.1>2>3

Mfpatw;iw

fhZk;NghJ thjpapd; gpwe;j Njjp 20.07.1975 vd;gJ GydhfpwJ. thjpapd; gpwe;j Njjp 20.07.1975 vd;gij thjp jd; rhl;rpa rhd;whtzq;fs; %yk; epUgpj;Js;shh;. thjp jug;gpy; th.rh.M.4 flTr; rPl;L vz;.S941913. th.rh.M.5 flTr; rPl;L vz; E4672529> th.rh.M.6 flTr; rPl;L vz; E6977637 FwpaPL nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;fz;l th.rh.M.4> 5> 6 flTr;rPl;Lfspy; thjpapd; gpwe;jNjjp 02.07.1972 vd Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. thjpapd; gpwe;j Njjp 20.07.1975 vd th.rh.M.1>

2>

Mtzq;fspy; W.P.(MD)No.17790oofo2020 Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s epiyapy; th.rh.M.4> 5> 6 flTr;rPl;Lfspy; thjpapd; gpwe;j Njjp

02.07.1972 vd jtwhf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. thjp jd; flTr;rPl;by; gpwe;j Njjp jtwhf Fwpg;gp;lg;gLs;sJ vd;Wk; mjid jpUj;jk; nra;a 22.02.2017 Njjp gpujpthjp mYtyfj;jpy; khw;wpju Nfl;ljhf $wpAs;shh;. thjpf;F th.rh.M.4> 5> 6 flTr;rPl;L jpUr;rp kz;ly gh];Nghh;l; mYtyfj;jpy; toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. fle;j 22.02.2017 mth; jd; flTr;rPl;by; gpwe;j Njjpia jpUj;jk; nra;a gpujpthjpaplk; Nfl;lhh; vd;gjw;Fk; mjw;F gpujpthjp kWj;J ePjpkd;wk; cj;juT ngw;w tur; nrhd;djw;Fk; thjp jug;gpy; vt;tpj rhl;rpa rhd;whtzq;fSk; jhf;fy; nra;atpy;iy. fle;j 22.02.2017k; Njjp mth; gpwe;j Njjp khw;wpj;ju Nfhupajw;fhd tpz;zg;gNkh mjw;F gpujpthjp kWj;jjw;fhd Fwpg;ghizNah vJTk; thjp jugg; py; rhl;rpahf Kd;dplg;gltpy;iy. Mifahy; Nkw;fz;l rq;fjpfis thjp jd; rhl;rpaq;fs; %yk; votpy;iy vd;gJ GydhfpwJ. thjpapd; gpwe;j Njjp 20.07.1975 vd;gij thjp jd; rhl;rpak; %yk; ep&gpj;Js;shh; vdW; k;> thjpf;F flTr;rPl;by; thjpapd; gpwe;j Njjp 4/10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis jhth 20.07.1975 vd;gjw;F gjpyhf 02.07.1972 vd Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sij gpujpthjp jpUj;jk; nra;J Gjpa flTr;rPl;L toq;f kWj;jhh; vd;gij thjp ep&gpf;ftpy;iy vd;Wk; jPh;khdpf;fpNwd;. Kbthf thjp thth uhTj;jhpd; gpwe;j Njjp 20.07.1975 vd tpsk;Gif nra;J thjpf;F tpsk;Gif ghpfhuk; fpilf;fj;jf;fJ vd;Wk;> thjpapd; flTr;rP;l;By; gpwe;j Njjp

20.07.1972 jtwhf mr;rplg;gl;lij khw;wp rhpahd gpwe;j Njjp 20.07.1975 vd jpUj;jk; nra;J flTr;rPl;L toq;f gpujpthjpf;F cj;jutpl Kba ,ayhJ vd KbT nra;J thjp Nfhhpa nraYWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; thjpf;F

fpilf;fj;jf;fjy;y

vd;Wk; jPh;khdpf;fpNwd; Kbthf thjp tof;Fiuapy; Nfhhpa tpsk;Gif ghpfhuj;ij nghWj;J tof;fpid mDkjpj.. ghpfhuj;ij nghWj;J tof;fpid js;Sgb

nra;Jk;

jPh;g;gspf;fNwd;. nryTj;njhif ,y;iy."

¶4The grievance of the petitioner is that a representation was made after the Decree was passed in the suit to correct the date of birth and instead of correcting the date of birth, the respondent proceeded to initiate action against the petitioner for giving the wrong date of birth. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.

¶5The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. The respondent has taken a stand that the petitioner had entered the date of birth as 02.07.1972 and after a lapse of 23 years, the petitioner wants to change the date of birth. That apart, the mandatory injunction that was sought for against the respondent was also rejected by the Civil Court and therefore, the request made by the petitioner is not sustainable. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the respondent has issued a communication dated 18.01.2021 to the petitioner seeking for some details and no details were provided by the petitioner and therefore, the respondent was not able to act upon the request made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶6Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶7In the considered view of this Court, the competent Civil Court has declared the date of birth of the petitioner as 20.07.1975. The relief of mandatory injunction was rejected on the ground that there was no cause of action for the petitioner to seek for such relief at the relevant point of time. Since there was no material available to show that the respondent had rejected to carry out the change in the date of birth, this rejection of the relief of mandatory injunction is now being taken advantage by the respondent and the respondent has refused to carry out the correction in the date of birth in the passport.

¶8In the considered view of this Court, the relief of declaration has been granted by the Civil Court and the date of birth of the petitioner was determined as 20.07.1975. In the suit, the respondent was the defendant and therefore, it binds the respondent. The rejection of the relief of mandatory injunction was due to the fact that there were no material available before the Court to show that the respondent had rejected the request made by the petitioner for change of date of birth. That does not mean that the respondent will not carry out the change of date of birth in the passport based on the declaratory relief that has been granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶9In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the respondent to act upon the representation made by the petitioner and to reissue the passport by changing the date of birth from

02.07.1972 to 20.07.1975. This process shall be completed by the respondent within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

06.10.2023 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no tsg

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. tsg

06.10.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.10.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Vava Rowther ... Petitioner Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, The Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Uil Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai. ...Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to re- issue the passport as per the decree and judgment in O.S.No.27/2017 by the changing date of birth from 02.07.1972 to 20.07.1975 based on the petitioner's representation dated 10.09.2020 For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arputharaj For Respondent : Mr.Asok Kumar Ram Senior Panel Counsel, Government of India