Judgment :- 1. By consent of both the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner herein has been granted passport bearing No. 16687/1984 issued by the respondent. The petitioner states that she is a B.Sc., (Home Science) graduate and did her post graduation in the year 1980. Now she is employed as a Dietician-General in the Government Stanley Hospital at Madras, and she wants to pursue her higher education in Canada. She has further stated that her correct date of birth is 26-8-1958 whereas her date of birth in the passport is stated as 25-8-1958 by inadvertence as she applied for her passport through a travel agent who by mistake has given her date of birth as 25.8.1958, instead of the correct date of birth being 26-8-1958. After the expiry of ten years, that is after the period of the passport had expired, the petition has filed a fresh application for issue of passport. In the fresh application dated 4-2-1993 in column 6 of the Form, the petitioner has stated about the change of date of birth from 25-8-1958 to 26-8-1958. It is stated by the petitioner that the application dated 14.2.1994 was not disposed of by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 26-8-1958 in column relating to the date of birth in the passport of the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in all her certificates such as degree certificate, correct date of birth is given as 26.8.1958 and by inadvertance, the travel agent, through ‘whom she applied her passport, has given her date of birth as 25.8.1958 and the same should be corrected by the respondent and the correct date of birth of the petitioner as 26.8.1958 should be stated in the passport. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein, the respondent has stated that as per the instruction of the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, if a passport holder applies for change of date of birth, he/she should be advised to produce before the Passport Authority the Original copy of the Declaratory Order issued by Competent court directing the Passport Authority to effect change of date of birth in his/her passport. It is further submitted that the passports are issued under S. 5 of the Passport Act, 1967 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ and as per S. 5(2) of the Act, on receipt of an application, the Pa ssport Authority, after making such enquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary and subject to the other provisions of the Act, issues the Passport for travel with necessary endorsements. It is submitted that the power is exercised by the Passport issuing authority under S. 5(2) of the Act is a quasi-judicial power, and once this power is exercised, there is no provision in the Act for the issuing Authority to review or to revise its own grant or order. In view of the same the Passport Issuing Authority are insisting whenever a request for change of date of birth is made by an applicant, to produce the original copy of the declaratory order issued by the competent Magistrate. There is some force in the contention of the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel to the effect that the power exercised by the Passport Issuing Authority under S. 5(2) of the Act is a quasi-judicial power and once this power is exercised, there is no provision in the Act for issuing authority to review or revise its own grant or order, and the Act does not confer the power to review or revise the said order to the Passport Issuing Authority. I am of the view that wherever there are clerical mistakes or mistakes due to inadvertance which do not go to the root on merit of the matter, it is always open to the authority empowered to issue passports under S. 5(2) of the Act, to correct such mistakes and such a power is inherent in exercising of such function. In this connection a reference may be made to S. 14 o f the General Clauses Act 1897 which reads as follows:— “Where, by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any power is conferred, then unless a different intention appears that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires”. In this connection a reference may be made to S. 14 o f the General Clauses Act 1897 which reads as follows:— “Where, by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any power is conferred, then unless a different intention appears that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires”. It is clear from a reading of the S. 14 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 that if power is conferred by any Central Act or Regulation then, unless a different intention appears that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. Further, the Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others (1981 Lab I.C. 155) at 158 has observed as follows:— “The expression ‘review’ is used in two distinct senses, namely, (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense that the Court in Narshi Thakershis case held that no review lies on merits unless a statute specifically provides for it, obviously when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such power inheres in every Court or Tribunal”. Thus there is a distinction between a procedural review and a review on merits. A procedural review is either inherent or implied in a court, a tribunal or a quasi-judicial authority to set aside palpably erroneous order passed under misapprehension by it. A review on merits can be corrected only when specific power of review or revisions is conferred by the statute in authority concerned. Therefore, I am of the view that the Passport Issuing Authority has got ample power to correct the clerical mistakes and errors due to inadvertance which do not go into the root of the matter and which are procedural review inherent and implied in such power under S. 5 of the Act. 5. Therefore, I am of the view that the Passport Issuing Authority has got ample power to correct the clerical mistakes and errors due to inadvertance which do not go into the root of the matter and which are procedural review inherent and implied in such power under S. 5 of the Act. 5. In the instant case, the petitioner has stated that in all her original certificates, such as, degree certificate, issued by the Madras University, the date of birth of the petitioner is stated as 26.8.1958 only. Even in her other certificates and service records her date of birth is given as 26.8.1958. It is the definite case of the petitioner that the error in the date of birth has occurred due to the inadvertance by the Travel Agent who applied for her earlier Passport. Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the mistake is one of the inadvertance and does not go to the root of the matter, or merits of the case and as such the respondent has got power to ratify such mistakes. In view of the above, it is open to the petitioner to file fresh application to the respondent for issue of passport giving the correct date of birth and give reasons for the mistakes that has taken place. It is for the respondent to consider application of the petitioner in accordance with law, and pass necessary orders. With the above observations this writ petition is dismissed. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been given provisional admission in Nursing Course in Canada in the University of Saskatchewan and she has to leave India and reach Canada in the first week of September, 1994. In view of the above reason, the respondent shall dispose of the application expeditiously.