ACHAPULLY IBRAHIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner states that he is holding Ext. P2, an Indian Passport bearing No. E5667913, in which his date of birth was entered as 10/10/1959. Based on Ext. P3, an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam declaring that his date of birth is 15/01/1966, the said date was incorporated in Ext. P4, the renewed passport, that was issued bearing No. G8811645. It is stated that when the petitioner's employer made an application to the General Directorates for Naturalisation and Residence of Ajman for stamping the petitioner's Visa on the new passport, citing the discrepancy in the date of birth as entered in the new passport and the old one, the Directorate refused to stamp his Visa. This was intimated by the petitioner's employer to the 2nd respondent as per Ext. P5 communication dated 18/01/2009.

(3.) The petitioner complains that if the 2nd respondent gives a clarification that the date of birth now available in Ext. P4 passport is the corrected date of birth, and that it is more authentic than the date of birth which was originally entered in Ext. P2 passport, his employer will succeed in persuading the General Directorates for Naturalisation and Residence of Ajman to stamp his Visa. It is stated that due to the fact that the 2nd respondent has not responded to Ext. P5, his Visa has not been stamped and that as a result of which, when the present Visa expires on 26/02/2009, the petitioner is likely to be deported to India. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed praying that the 2nd respondent be directed to issue such clarificatory orders, such as are warranted to get the petitioner's Visa stamped.