Sunday, 19, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Muchipalli Asutosh Jayanth vs The Government Of India And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4352 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4352 Tel
Judgement Date : 29 August, 2022

Telangana High Court
Muchipalli Asutosh Jayanth vs The Government Of India And ... on 29 August, 2022
Bench: K.Lakshman
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

             WRIT PETITION No.13636 of 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri G.V.L.Murthy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri V.Ramesh Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

for Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of

the 2nd respondent in not renewing/issuing fresh passport to

the petitioner by making necessary corrections regarding date

of birth and place of birth of the petitioner in his passport

bearing No.J8970980 as "17.12.2013" "Hyderabad", instead

of "17.12.2001", "Tadepalligudem", West Godavari District,

pursuant to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.639 of 2016

dated 04.04.2016 on the file of the learned III Junior Civil

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in spite of the application

of the petitioner dated 19.03.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and

unilateral and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue

passport to the petitioner by renewing the passport by

incorporating the necessary corrections pursuant to the

passport No.J8970980 forthwith.

                                2                           KL, J
                                           W.P.No.13636 of 2022




3. Perusal of record would reveal that the petitioner

herein had obtained passport bearing No.J8970980 on

20.10.2011 and it is valid upto 19.10.2016. In the said

passport, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as

"17.12.2001". According to him, his date of birth is

"17.12.2003". In proof of the same, petitioner herein has filed

Date of Birth certificate dated 10.03.2016 issued by Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and also copy of

Secondary School Certificate (SSC) Marks Memo. He has also

filed copy of decree and judgment in O.S.No.639 of 2016

dated 04.04.2016 passed by learned III Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

4. Petitioner herein has submitted an application

dated 09.05.2016 with the 2nd respondent with a request to

correct the said date of birth. Vide letter dated 10.08.2017,

2nd respondent requested the petitioner to furnish original

documents for verification and process of his application. A

similar notice was issued on 09.11.2018 to the petitioner

herein stating that if the petitioner is having any documents 3 KL, J W.P.No.13636 of 2022

in proof of his claim, he has to appear and submit on or

before 08.12.2018, failing which it will be presumed that he

has got nothing to say in the matter and the file will be

closed.

5. Despite the same, according to learned counsel for

the 2nd respondent, petitioner herein did not appear before

the 2nd respondent and submit any documentary evidence.

Therefore, the file was closed.

6. Sri V.Ramesh Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

Central Government appearing for the respondents, on

instructions, would further submit that suppressing the said

fact, the petitioner herein had made another application dated

19.03.2020 with similar request.

7. Vide letter dated 17.09.2020, 2nd respondent has

requested the petitioner herein to furnish the information and

there is also a suppression of fact etc., and the file was closed.

8. Vide Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2016, the

1st respondent has issued certain guidelines including a 4 KL, J W.P.No.13636 of 2022

guideline that the Passport Issuing Authority shall consider

the explanation of each applicant seeking change in the date

of birth to find the genuineness of the claim even though

more than five years have elapsed after the issue of the

passport. The Passport Issuing Authority need not entertain

any application in a routine manner for correction of date of

birth unless such application is filed along with a genuine

explanation explaining the delay in approaching the Passport

Issuing Authority. If such an application is filed, the Passport

Issuing Authority shall consider the same and take

appropriate decision as per the instructions contained in the

circulars dated 26.11.2015 and 13.01.2016.

9. Thus, correction of date of birth can be considered

even beyond five years of period in case if there is a genuine

case and the applicant will be in a position to submit some

authenticated document.

10. In view of the aforesaid guidelines and also facts, it

is not in dispute that the application submitted by the

petitioner was closed since the petitioner herein has not 5 KL, J W.P.No.13636 of 2022

furnished the documents as sought by the 2nd respondent.

The petitioner herein has submitted second application on

19.03.2020 with suppression of earlier application submitted

by him.

11. However, this Court has gone through the

documents produced by the petitioner herein in the present

writ petition i.e., Date of Birth Certificate dated 10.03.2016

issued by GHMC and also copy of SSC Marks Memo wherein

the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 17.12.2003.

It is trite to note that date of birth mentioned in SSC Marks

Memo shall be considered as genuine one and authenticated.

12. In view of the said fact and also in view of the

guidelines issued by the 1st respondent vide Office

Memorandum dated 22.09.2016 stating that correction of

date of birth is permissible in genuine case even beyond five

years, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the

petitioner herein to make an application afresh by duly

enclosing copy of the said birth certificate issued by GHMC

and also copy of SSC Marks Memo within one (01) week from 6 KL, J W.P.No.13636 of 2022

today to the 2nd respondent and on receipt of the said

application, 2nd respondent shall consider the same and take

appropriate steps in accordance with law. If the petitioner

fails to submit the said application and documents relevant

within the aforesaid time, his application cannot be

considered. If the 2nd respondent is having any clarification

from the petitioner, he is at liberty to seek the same and

petitioner shall furnish the said documents and also furnish

information as sought by the 2nd respondent. There shall be

no order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, in this

writ petition shall stand closed.

___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J

Date: 29.08.2022

Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow.

(B/o.) KL

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter