Pratap Singh Alias Ram Singh vs Airport Authority Of India
2009 Latest Caselaw 1729 Del

*             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    Writ Petition (Civil) No.5891/2004

                                       Date of Decision : 28.4.2009

PRATAP SINGH ALIAS RAM SINGH              ......Petitioner
                          Through : Mr.Rajesh Kumar for
                          Ms.Anusuya Salwan, Advocate


                                 Versus



AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA          ......      Respondent
                          Through : Ms.S.Fatima for
                          Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate.


CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be
      allowed to see the judgment?                   YES
2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?        NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported
      in the Digest ?                                NO

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

Proxy counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment on

the ground that Ms.Salwan, Advocate is not well. Request for

adjournment has been opposed by the learned counsel for the

respondent. I have perused the previous orders also. Sufficient

accommodation has been given to the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

Further request for adjournment cannot be granted in view

of the fact that the matter seems to be dealt by the judgment of

the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat in Civil Appeal No.

No.21/2005.

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition had sought

correction in the date of birth recorded by the respondent where

he was employed as Assistant General Manager (Operations).

The date of birth which was recorded in the record of the

respondent was 2nd May, 1945 while as the petitioner wanted the

same to be changed to 4th February, 1947. The prayer set up by

the petitioner was that he was born at Shahjahan Road, Tehsil

and Post office Sonepat District Rohtak now Sonepat Haryana

since his father was illiterate, & while getting the petitioner

admitted in the school got his date of birth recorded as

02.5.1945 instead of 04.2.1947. The petitioner passed the

Matriculation examination from Punjab University Chandigarh in

the year 1962 where his date of birth got recorded as 2.5.1945.

In 1994, the petitioner is purported to have visited his native

place at Shah Jahanpur whereupon he learnt that his year of

birth was actually 1947 which is before partition and not 1945,

accordingly, he made a request to the Punjab University for

making necessary correction regarding his date of birth in the

Matriculation Certificate. This was followed by number of visits

since the Punjab University did not oblige by correcting the date

of birth with the result he was constrained to file a Civil Suit on

17.2.1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Sonepat

for correction of the date of birth in the record of Punjab

University. The learned Civil Judge passed a decree in favour of

the petitioner directing the respondent in the said case to change

the date of birth from 2.5.1945 to 08.2.47.

2. Based on the aforesaid decree, the petitioner is purported

to have made a representation in the month of February, 1995 to

the Airport Authority of India i.e. the respondent herein for

making necessary corrections regarding his date of birth in their

record also where he was working as Assistant General Manager

(Operations). The respondent directed the petitioner to produce

the School Leaving Certificate and the Matriculation Certificate,

however, the same was not done and the petitioner chose to file

the present writ petition. The respondent have filed their counter

affidavit and disputed the claim of the petitioner. In the

meantime, the Punjab University filed an appeal against the

judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat dated

18.1.2005 directing the rectification of the date of birth by the

Punjab University from 2.5.1945 to 4.2.1947. This appeal has

been allowed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat in favour

of the Punjab University as early as on 24.9.2005 and therefore,

the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division which

formed a basis of rectification of the date of birth by the

respondent herein is completely taken away.

3. The petitioner has not preferred any Second Appeal against

the order of the additional District Judge dated 24.9.2005.

Therefore, the decision of the learned Additional District Judge

as on date stands that the date of birth which is recorded in the

Matriculation Certificate issued by the Punjab University is the

authentic proof about the date of birth of the petitioner which

happens to be 2nd May, 1945. Accordingly, there is no merit in

the petition of the petitioner for rectification of the date of birth

from 2.5.1945 to 4.2.1947 as is sought by him in the prayer

clause.

4. For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition of is without any

merit and the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

V.K. SHALI, J.

APRIL 28, 2009 RN