SATINDER PAL SINGH SIBIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner now aged 20 years, was adopted by Kulwant Singh Sibia and Sharandeep Kaur Sibia according to custom of the parties on 25.2.1998 by way of adoption deed dated 3.3.1998, Annexure P-4, which was executed before a Notary Public. Subsequently, another adoption deed with respect to the same parties dated 22.6.2001, Annexure P-5, was executed and registered with the Sub-Register, Jagraon. As the adoptive parents of the petitioner were working in the USA, he wished to join them and accordingly applied for issuance of a passport to the Regional Passaic Officer on 30.3.2001. Inspite of having enquired from the Passport Officer repeatedly as to the fate of his application, no fruitful result came about and he was ultimately informed vide order dated 21.7.2004, Annexure P-8, that his case had been examined but as the adoption was not in order as it was registered after the adoptive child had attained the age of 15 years he was not entitled to a passport under his adoptive child had attained the age of 15 years he was not entitled to a passport under his adoptive parents. He was accordingly advised to apply afresh for a passport under natural parentage. The order, Annexure P-8, has been impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) IN the written statement, a preliminary submission has been raised that had been mis-statement to fact inasmuch as the petitioner has been adopted on 25.2.1998 whereas the adoption deed dated 22.6.2001, Annexure P-5, clearly, showed that he had been adopted much later and after the attained the age of 15 years which was against the provision of Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which provided that no child who had completed fifteen years of ago, could be taken for adoption.

(3.) WE find that the stand taken by the respondents is clearly unsustainable. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of the Pawan Deep Singh v. Union of India and another, 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 459 (P&H), has held that it was not open to the Passport Officer to go into the question of the validity of an adoption at the time of the issuance of a passport as the Officer could decline a passport only for the reasons set out under Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 and an illegal adoption was not envisaged under that Section. We find that the only ground of not issuing the passport is that the adoption itself was bad in law. We accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the order. Annexure P-8, dated 21.7.2004. As the petition has now attained the age of majority, we direct that the passport be issued to him within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is supplied to the respondents. Dasti order. Petition allowed.