K.V. Raghavan @ Unnikrishnan vs Union of India (UOI) and Regioal Passport Officer

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—The petitioner, even going by the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, was issued a passport in 1982. In that, as well as in the renewed passport, his date of birth is shown as 20.9.1927. His date of birth as per the extract of the admission register of the school is 2.5.1952. It has also been duly certified by the Deputy Director (General) & Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur that the petitioner''s date of birth is 2.5.1952. That certificate is issued even after looking into the passport. The said certificate was issued in 1999, obviously, when the petitioner saw that his date of birth has been wrongly entered in the passport. The difference between the date of birth as noted in the passport and that shown in the admission register as also the certification by the ADM is around 25 years. The petitioner says that he was born on 20.9.1127 ME. Obviously, converting that, it would correspond to 1952 AD. The error is quite obvious. The passport authorities at the first instance would have thought it that 1127 is a wrong entry and therefore, it was treated as 1927. Acting on that error, the petitioner who should be around 56 or 58 years stands to be taken as an 80 year old person. With the certificate issued by the ADM, it would not call for any further probe into the matter particularly when there is no material to assume that the entry in the passport was deliberately obtained by the petitioner, erroneously, with oblique motives and that the present certification is unreliable, suspicious or appears to be procured or manipulated. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to Annexure R2(B) circular issued on the basis of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana in Writ Petition No. 13722/2007 (Shri Resham Singh v. Union of India) clarifying that it is unnecessary to relegate the parties to authorities unless there are strong grounds to believe that the certificate relied on for the correction is unreliable, suspicious or appears to be procured or manipulated. Reference also can be made to the decision of this Court in Aboo Chettiyanthodi Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Malappuram, in which Resham''s case was referred to and it was held that the passport issuing authority is free to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner with reference to the extract of the admission register and compulsion to take recourse to civil court in terms of the circulars would come only if materials do not generate confidence. It also needs to be stated that even in terms of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the Magistracy has the necessary power to deal with cases of delayed requests for registering the births or deaths, as the case may be. In the case in hand, when the Executive Magistrate, the ADM has himself certified, as per Ext.P3, the date of birth of the petitioner, there is no reason why the Passport Officer could not act on that material. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is ordered directing that the second respondent would act on Ext.P3 certification by the ADM and effect necessary rectifications and corrections in the passport of the petitioner and in the attendant official records. Let this be done at the earliest.