MOHIT Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was born on 18.08.1990. The biological parents of the petitioner are S.M. Arora and Nirmal Arora. His sister Gurpreet was born on 10.01.1988. The marriage of his natural parents was dissolved by a decree of divorce in the year 1996 in HMA No.843/92 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi and custody of both the children were handed over to their mother Nirmal Arora, who re-married Ujjal Singh on 13.02.1997 and got their marriage registered with the Registrar of Marriages, Panipat. At the time of re-marriage of his mother, the petitioner was about 7 years of age and his elder sister was about 9 years of age, who have been brought up by their mother and step-father Ujjal Singh, whose name is recorded as father of the petitioner in the Ration Card, Adhar Card, PAN card, Voter Identity card, School Certificate and even in the Passport No.F3149729 of her sister Gurpreet. The petitioner also applied for passport with the father's name of his step-father but he has been informed that it can be issued in the name of his biological father in view of Para 4.4 of Chapter 8 of the Passport Manual Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The petitioner has, thus, filed this petition seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents as illegal in not issuing him passport in the name of his step-father Ujjal Singh.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the son of Ujjal Singh, which is recorded in various other government records and if the name of his biological father is mentioned in the passport, as being insisted upon by the passport authority, then it would create a lot of confusion especially when his real elder sister is already holding the passport bearing the name of his step-father Ujjal Singh and not the biological father S.M. Arora. It is also submitted that at the time of divorce, the biological father handed over his custody to his mother and snapped all his relations with the petitioner about his maintenance, education and other necessities of life including visitation rights. It is further submitted that for all intents and purposes, the step-father of the petitioner is his legal guardian though he has not been so appointed by the Court because it was never found necessary, therefore, Para 4.4 of Chapter 8 of the Act, relied upon by the respondents may be read down in favour of the petitioner considering Ujjal Singh, his step-father, as his legal guardian in the given facts and circumstances. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shalu Nigam & Anr. vs. The Regional Passport Officer & Anr., W.P. (C) No.155/2016, decided on 17.05.2016 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Prerna Katia vs. Regional Passport Office Chandigarh and another, CWP No.26805 of 2015, decided on 05.08.2016.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has only relied upon the provisions of Para 4.4 of Chapter 8 of the Act and contended that the respondents had no objection if the petitioner obtains an order from the Court appointing his step-father Ujjal Singh as his legal guardian.