Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 44 (CAL)

Piyush Gupta v. UNION OF INDIA

2011-01-12

J.K.BISWAS

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated January 7, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief:- "(a) A writ of mandamus or a writ in the same nature thereof commanding the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 2 to correct the wrong date of birth of the petitioner as 13.09.1989 mentioned in the passport of the petitioner being No. F6734000 and in-corporated his actual date of birth as 10.06.1989 in the said passport." 2. THE second respondent is the Regional Passport Officer, Kolkata to whom the petitioner submitted a representation dated December 3, 2010 (at p. 21). Relevant parts of the representation are quoted below:- "I am Piyush Gupta, son of Todarmal Gupta, permanent resident of 2016, Boral Main Road, 'Jaya Apartment' Block-ll, 2nd Floor, Garia, Kolkata-84. Your office issued a passport being No. F6734000 in my name as per my application validly of the said passport is from 04.04.2006 to 03.04.2011. In that passport my date of birth is mentioned 13.09.1989. Whereas my actual date of birth is 10.06. 1989. So kindly correct my wrong date of birth and incorporated my actual date of birth in the said passport. Otherwise it will cause difficulties in my higher studies in abroad." 3. SINCE the second respondent did not give any attention to the representation, the petitioner has brought this petition. 4. COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that since the documents produced with the petition will reveal that the petitioner's actual date of birth is June 10, 1989, once the representation was made, the second respondent incurred an obligation to correct the date of birth that was recorded in the passport issued on April 4, 2006 as September 13, 1989. Counsel for the respondents has submitted as follows. The passport is valid upto April 3, 2011. For undisclosed reasons the petitioner remained silent from April 4, 2006. At the date the passport was issued under the Passports Act, 1967 the petitioner was a minor. 5. THE question is whether by simply making a representation the petitioner could create the passport authority's statutory obligation to decide the question of correction of his date of birth recorded in the passport. 6. At the date the passport was issued under the Passports Act, 1967 the petitioner was a minor. 5. THE question is whether by simply making a representation the petitioner could create the passport authority's statutory obligation to decide the question of correction of his date of birth recorded in the passport. 6. RULE 5 of the Passports Rules, 1980 provides that an application for issue of a passport or travel document or for the renewal thereof or for any miscellaneous service shall be made in the appropriate Form set out therefor in Part-I of Schedule-Ill to the rules and in accordance with the procedure and instructions set out in such Form to be supplied by the Central Government or the person authorised by it at the specified price. Rules 8, 9 and 10 of the rules provide that the fee payable on every application shall be remitted at the specified rate by demand draft drawn in favour of the passport authority or paid in cash, and that the fee shall be refunded if applied within one year from the date of payment, inter alia, if after paying the fee the person does not submit the application. 7. HERE the admitted position is that the petitioner seeking miscellaneous service from the passport authority submitted a plain representation unsupported by any material and without paying any fee. It is evident that the application was not filed in terms of the provisions of Rules 5, 8 and 9 of the rules. Only an application filed under these rules could create the authority's statutory obligation, if any, to decide the question of correction of the date of birth recorded in the passport. 8. SINCE the representation for the purpose was just not entertainable, I am of the view that by ignoring it, even if the passport authority received it (because there is no evidence to show that he received it), the authority did not commit any wrong. The representation, an extra legal approach, did not create any obligation of the authority to do anything. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs.