PRASHANTH SATHYAVAN Vs. SINDHU GEORGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W .A. No. 908/2015 is filed by the respondents in the writ petition challenging the judgment dated 10/04/2015 in W.P.C. No. 35380/2014. W.A. No. 900/2015 is filed by a third party against the very same judgment. The short facts shown in these writ appeals are as under:

(2.) THOUGH a statement was filed by the Assistant Solicitor General of India on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition stating that in order to qualify the child to be a citizen of India, the child should have at least one parent as the citizen of India. Since there was no material to indicate that Sri. Prashanth Sathyavan, who claims to have been living with the petitioner, was a citizen of India, passport could not have been issued. No material was produced to establish the citizenship of the child's father though an opportunity was granted to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, it was not possible for the Passport Officer to issue the passport.

(3.) IT is, impugning the aforesaid judgment, Union of India has come up with W.A. No. 908/2015. The learned ASGI submits that, in the absence of any material to indicate that one of the parents of the child was an Indian citizen, in view of Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, no passport could have issued to Archana Prashanth. This aspect of the matter is completely ignored by the learned Single Judge especially in view of Section 6(2)(a) of the Passport Act, 1967.