Delhi High Court
Mukesh Kumar Srivastava vs Union Of India & Anr on 23 October, 2019
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd October, 2019
+ LPA 668/2019 & CM APPLs. 45826/2019, 45827/2019
MUKESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Prateek Tushar Mohanty,
Ms.Payal Mohanty and Mr.Tushar
Ranjan Mohanty, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla,
CGSC with Mr. Mukesh Pandey
and Mr. Murari Shukla, Advs. for
R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 23.10.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
CM APPL. 45826/2019 (for condonation of delay)
1. This Civil Miscellaneous application has been preferred by the
appellant under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of
60 days in preferring the appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the
reasons stated in this application, there are reasonable grounds for
condonation of delay.
3. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay of 60 days in preferring
the appeal by the appellant.
4. The application stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.
LPA 668/2019
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant
(original petitioner) whose W.P.(C) 6837/2019 was dismissed by the
learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 16th July, 2019
(Annexure P-1 to the memo of this LPA), whereby the prayer for change
of date of birth in passport from 10th April, 1957 to 4th July, 1957 was not
allowed by the learned Single Judge, despite the fact that the appellant
had taken voluntary retirement from the services of Government of India
on 9th June, 2009, and he has already crossed the age of 62 years and
despite the fact that the change of date of birth by few months is prayed
by the appellant only because of the birth certificate issued by the
Municipal Corporation of Lucknow Nagar Nigam.
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the date of birth
mentioned in the passport of the present appellant was "10th April, 1957",
on the basis of his class X school certificate.
3. The appellant was in the service of Indian Statistical Service,
Government of India, and took voluntary retirement on 6th June, 2009.
4. Thus, more than a decade has lapsed, since the appellant has ceased
to be in the services of the Government of India. Therefore, as stated by
the appellant in the memo of the writ petition as well as in this appeal, he
is not going to claim any monetary benefit from the Government of India
or from other authority by having the date of birth, in his passport,
rectified, from 10th April, 1957 to 4th July, 1957.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, makes a
statement at the Bar, before this Court, that no monetary benefit shall be
claimed by the appellant on the basis of change of his date of birth in his
passport, as prayed by him. However, on the basis of the rectified birth
certificate issued by Municipal Corporation of Lucknow Nagar Nigam, to
the appellant, prays that the date of birth as entered in his passport be
changed as he desires to settle in the USA, as both his sons are
permanently settled there.
6. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has retired from the Indian
Statistical Service after his voluntary retirement, in June, 2009. The
Office Memorandum (F. No. 19017/1/2014-Estt (A-IV) dated 16th
January, 2014 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, cannot be said to preclude the appellant from preferring an
application for rectification of his date of his birth in his passport for the
reason that after his retirement in 2009, the aforesaid office memorandum
which applies only to „a government servant‟ cannot be extended to a
retired government servant. Therefore, the contention that he could seek
a rectification of his date of birth within five years of his joining of
service does not hold ground.
7. Further, the appellant was issued his birth certificate by the
Municipal Corporation of Lucknow Nagar Nigam on the 19 th of
September, 2018 and has then, preferred an application before the
respondents on 18th of December, 2018 for the aforementioned
rectification, and thus by no means, has the appellant caused any
inordinate or unexplained delay in preferring such an application for
rectification.
8. Para 6.1 read with Clause (i) of para 6.10, of „Chapter III of the
Compendium of instructions/guidelines relating to the issue of passports
in India/abroad‟, envisage a correction/rectification of date of birth in a
subsequent passport if a bonafide change is preferred by the applicant.
For ready reference, Clause (i) of para 6.10 thereof, is reproduced as
under:-
"6.10 As per recent circular no. VI/401/2/5/2001, dated
22.09.2016 issued by the Ministry, the following are the
additional guidelines for PIA on judicial pronouncements
made after the issue of the OM dated 26.11.2015 and
13.01.2016:
(i) The PIA shall consider the explanation of each applicant
seeking change in the DOB to find the genuineness of the
claim even though more than five years have elapsed after
the issue of the passport."
9. The appellant herein was issued his birth certificate on 19 th
September, 2018 only after approaching the concerned authority. It would
be incorrect to say that the appellant has acted in a malafide manner,
since it was the Municipal Corporation of Lucknow Nagar Nigam that
informed the appellant of his correct date of birth and issued the aforesaid
birth certificate, after which he had promptly, on 18 th December, 2018,
preferred an application for rectification of his date of birth in his
passport. Thus, the appellant in a bonafide manner sought rectification of
his date of birth within three months of his birth certificate having been
issued and thus has not caused any unnecessary undue inordinate delay in
preferring such an application.
10. Furthermore, the authenticity or validity of the said birth certificate
which has been issued by the competent authority, i.e. the Municipal
Corporation of Lucknow Nagar Nigam has neither been questioned, nor
been challenged in any court, and thus there exists no ground for the
respondents, to deny the appellant such a rectification of his date of birth
in his passport.
11. Thus, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents, or to
anybody for such change in the date of birth. No monetary benefit is also
going to be claimed by this appellant (original petitioner) in future.
12. Moreover, the change of date of birth is required and necessitated
because of different date of birth recorded in the certificate issued by the
Municipal Corporation of Lucknow Nagar Nigam.
13. The above aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated
by the learned Single Judge while deciding the W.P.(C) 6837/2019 on
16th July, 2019.
14. We, therefore, quash and set aside, judgment and order dated 16th
July, 2019 in W.P.(C) 6837/2019.
15. We, therefore, hereby direct the passport authority i.e. Respondent
No.2, to either issue fresh passport, to this appellant mentioning therein
his date of birth as 4th July, 1957, or to make necessary correction in his
existing passport by correcting his date of birth as 4th July, 1957.
16. The necessary corrections shall be carried out within a period of
four weeks from today, by the respondents, in the passport of this
appellant.
17. With the above observations, this letters patent appeal is allowed
and disposed of.
CM APPL. 45827/2019 in LPA 668/2019
18. In view of the order passed in LPA 668/2019, this Civil
Miscellaneous application stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
OCTOBER 23, 2019/dsn C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
