Judgment :- 1. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent, Regional Passport Officer, Chennai to consider her application dated 3.12.2011 for the issuance of fresh Passport with correct actual year of Date of Birth as "16.08.1964" instead of "16.08.1954". 2. When the Writ Petition came up on 18.06.2012, this Court ordered Notice on admission. On such notice, Mr.M.Krishnan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appears for the respondents. He also filed a counter affidavit dated 5.7.2012. It is stated by the respondents that the petitioner had earlier applied for Passport and travelled with two Passports, which are as follows: Passport No. Date of Place of Date of Issue Issue Expiry 1. G 088954 18.09.1989 Chennai 17.09.1999 2. Z 071810 03.05.1999 Chennai 02.05.2009 3. In both the Passports, the date of birth is only shown as 16.08.1954 by submitting the relevant documents with proof of her date of birth. The records related to Old Passport were destroyed due to efflux of time. The present Passport is issued on the basis of entries in the old Passport. Under the said circumstances, seeking for alteration after a period of 23 years from the date of his old Passport is not feasible for compliance. 4. In this context, the learned counsel referred to the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Resham Singh vs. Union of India (UOI) and another reported in (2008) 149 PLR 621 . The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court after considering the Passport Act as well as the General Clauses Act came to the conclusion that even if an alteration which is clerical was inadvertently made, the Passport Officer can consider and make corrections on his own, whereas if entries are made on the basis of relevant documents submitted by the person concerned, subsequently any set of documents are brought in, the Standing Orders require the declaratory order to be obtained from the appropriate Civil Court. In paragraph No.19, it was observed as follows: "19.) Thus, taking into consideration the aforementioned judgments, the enunciation of law, as detailed herein above, we are of the considered opinion that the Passport Authority erred by relegating the petitioner to seek a declaration before a civil court and refusing to entertain his plea for correction of his date of birth. In paragraph No.19, it was observed as follows: "19.) Thus, taking into consideration the aforementioned judgments, the enunciation of law, as detailed herein above, we are of the considered opinion that the Passport Authority erred by relegating the petitioner to seek a declaration before a civil court and refusing to entertain his plea for correction of his date of birth. We would like to once again emphasis that as and when an application is filed before a Passport authority and there appears to be a conflict between entries in the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths and the entry of birth in a school leaving certificate, the entry in the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths would prevail, and except where the certificate is unreliable, suspicious or appears to be procured or manipulated, parties should not be relegated to civil Courts in a mechanical manner." 5. The same view was also opined by the Delhi High Court in Shane Basil Laulman vs. Regional Passport Officer in W.P(C) No.3737 of 2010 dated 7.10.2010. The Delhi High Court also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jigar Harish Shah vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2001 Bombay 60. 6. In the present case, as noted already, the petitioner has availed twice the passport and asked for change, which will have the effect of 10 years alteration in the date of birth, i.e., from 1954 to 1964. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get the appropriate court order before making any change. Therefore, there is no case made out. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.