REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER Vs. KOKILABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Regional Passport Officer, Ahmedabad, aggrieved by certain directions and observations made by the learned Single Judge in special Civil Application No. 2716 of 2006 and connected matters, reported in 2006 (2)GLR 1165 : (AIR 2006 Guj 149), has come up with these appeals- Letters Patent Appeal nos. 1673 of 2006 and connected matters. Letters Patent Appeal No. 100 of 2008 and connected matters have also been filed by the same Officer aggrieved by the directions issued by another learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3907 of 2006 and connected matters (reported in 2006 (2)GLR 1208 : (AIR 2006 Guj 154) seeking some modifications.

(2.) THE issue involved in all these cases is either with regard to the correction of date of birth, place of birth or name entered in various Passports issued to the parties. Learned Single Judges, after referring to the instructions issued by the Ministry of External Affairs vide No. VI/401/2/5/2001 dated 18. 4. 2001, Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jigar Harish shah v. Union of India and Anr.- AIR 2001 bombay 60 and also another decision of this court in Prashant Vinodbhai Acharya v. Regional Passport Officer - 2004 (1) GLR 212 : (AIR 2004 (NOC) 232), disposed of all the petitions, permitting petitioners to move appropriate application for correction/amendment and change of date of birth, place of birth or name, as the case may be, and the competent Passport Authority was directed to consider the same after holding necessary enquiry and to pass, appropriate orders in accordance with law, and on merits in the light of the observation made by the learned Single Judge. It was also ordered that the Passport Authority, henceforth in future case, shall not straightaway refuse to entertain application, or decline to accept the application for correction without holding an enquiry, and shall not, without holding necessary enquiry call upon the applicant to obtain appropriate orders from the Court.

(3.) PASSPORT Authority is seriously aggrieved by the above directions issued by the learned Single Judge. It was stated that learned Single Judge has completely misinterpreted instructions issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, government of India, and has also committed an error in directing the Passport Authority to effect changes and enter details in the Passport after holding enquiry, without referring it to the Competent Authority or to the Civil court. Further, it was also pointed out that learned Single Judge has committed serious error in not noticing that there is no mechanism available under the Passport Act to decide the correctness or otherwise of the date of birth, place of birth and name already entered in the Passport, on the basis of the documents initially produced by the parties. Further, it was also stated that when there is difference in date of birth entered in the birth certificate issued by the authority under the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1961 and the School Leaving certificate issued by the competent school authority, such a discrepancy cannot be resolved by the Passport Authority, but it can be decided only by the competent Civil court. It was also pointed out that the certificate issued by the Competent Authority under the Births and Deaths Registration act is having over-riding effect over the entry made in the school leaving certificate and when there is difference in date of birth and name in two certificates issued by two Competent Authorities, the Passport Authority should not have been directed to make an enquiry and decide which certificate has to be accepted. It was also submitted that passport Rule provides only amendment to the extent of correction of genuine error or mistake and it does hot prescribe change of details, if the applicant himself has chosen to fill in the form with incorrect particulars in respect of place of birth, date of birth etc. on the basis of school leaving certificate or any other documents issued by the local authority, and when it is correctly entered into the Passport, it cannot be said to be an error which can be corrected by the Passport Authority. It was also pointed out that learned Single Judge has committed an error in not appreciating that Births and deaths Act provides that Magistrate is a competent authority to effect change of date of birth in the certificate. Passport Officer has already indicated that he is aggrieved by certain directions given by the learned single Judge in special Civil Application No. 4696 of 2006 and group. Learned Single judge disposed of Special Civil Application no. 4696 of 2006 and connected matters by giving certain directions, placing reliance on judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jigar harish Shah v. Union of India and Anr. (supra), judgment of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2716 of 2006 and connected matters reported in 2006 (2)GLR 1165 : (AIR 2002 Guj 149), instructions issued by the Ministry of External Affairs dated 18. 4. 2001, and also interpreting certain provisions under the Passport Act and the Rules. The learned Single Judge disposed of all those petitions by giving following directions :-