Delhi High Court
Mohd. Fozaib vs Union Of India And Anr. on 19 February, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6226/2014
MOHD. FOZAIB ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.S. Jakhar and Mr. B.S. Jakhar,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with
Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 19.02.2015
1. Mr. Sahay says that a counter affidavit has already been filed in
the matter. The counter affidavit is, however, not on record. The
Registry will place the counter affidavit on record. A copy of the
counter affidavit has been shown to me in court.
2. This writ petition raises a short issue. The issue raised in the
writ petition is this: the petitioner claims that his date of birth is,
16.03.1989, and that, despite his endeavours, the respondents refuse
to correct their record. In sum, the petitioner seeks incorporation of
the correct date of birth in the passport, which the respondents are
required to issue to him. To be noted, in the passport issued to the
petitioner on previous occasions, his date of birth was reflected as:
11.10.1988.
2.1 The respondents have refused to do the needful basically on the
W.P.(C) 6226/2014 page 1 of 3
ground that when the passport was first issued, and thereafter,
renewed, repeatedly, therein the petitioner's date of birth was shown
as : 11.10.1988.
2.2 A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has placed on
record, copies of the birth certificate issued by Registrar of Births
and Deaths, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Shahdara Zone), and the
school leaving certificate issued by the Central Board of Secondary
Education (CBSE), which is dated 27.05.2006.
2.3 The copies, placed on record of these documents, which are
attested as true copies by the petitioner, reflect the petitioner's date of
birth as: 16.03.1989. There can be no doubt that the primary
document for date of birth is the certificate issued by the concerned
Municipal Corporation. This proposition is not disputed by the
learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Therefore, all that the respondents, in my view, have to do is, to
verify the authenticity of these documents, which have been placed on
record by the petitioners. If these documents are found to be
authentic then, it is obvious, it is within the domain of the respondents
to carry out the necessary correction in their record. This is apparent
on a bare perusal of the circular issued by the Ministry of External
Affairs dated 29.10.2007, as amended from time to time.
3.1 It is the respondent's case that at the point in time when the
petitioner was first issued a passport, the date of birth was recorded
therein, based on a declaration made by his mother; who even
according to the respondents is illiterate. On the counsel for the
W.P.(C) 6226/2014 page 2 of 3
respondents being queried, the learned counsel informed me that no
supportive document was furnished on behalf of the petitioner
evidencing his date of birth at the time when the passport was first
issued to him, save and except the affidavit of the mother. It is stated
that no other document is available with the respondents.
3.2 Therefore, as indicated above, the respondents will ascertain the
authenticity of the documents, referred to above i.e., certificate issued
by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the CBSE. In case these
documents are found to be authentic then, necessary changes will be
made in the passport. Let the needful be done within four weeks from
today.
4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner, says that the
earlier passport has been cancelled. Needless to say, if what the
petitioner states is found to be correct, a new passport will be issued
to the petitioner with the correct date of birth, as found by the
respondents.
5. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petition
is disposed of.
6. List for compliance on 16.04.2015.
7. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2015
Yg
W.P.(C) 6226/2014 page 3 of 3
