PATEL JAYANTIBHAI BHIKHABHAI Vs. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Nilesh M. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Priyank Lodha, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Rule. Mr. Priyank Lodha, learned Central Government Counsel waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. Considering the issue involved in the matter and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

(3.) Following facts emerge from the record of the petition:­ That, the petitioner resides at Ahmedabad and the respondent authorities had issued a passport to the petitioner on 4.10.2000 under No.A9176115 which expired on 3.10.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that through oversight, the name of his wife is mentioned as Kailashben instead of Krishnaben and the petitioner has also further pointed out that in the earlier passport, through oversight and mistake, the place of birth is mentioned as Mandali instead of Delwada. It further appears that the petitioner has already filed an application for a fresh passport. It deserves to be noted that the earlier passport which expired, has been lost for which an information is lodged with the concerned Police Station. As the name of his wife as well as the place of birth is not changed, the present petition is filed.