JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking I directions to the respondent to re-issue the passport after necessary correction I regarding his date of birth as prayed for, without "insisting upon a declaratory order from the First Class Judicial Magistrate. 2. The petitioner was issued a passport Bearing No. AS774635 on I 10.11.1998, which was renewed on 4.6.2007. In the passport issued, the date of I birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 29.5.1988' whereas the actual date of birth I of the petitioner is 29.3.1988'. The petitioner made an application for correction I in date of birth alongwith the requisite documents, which include the Secondary School Examination Certificate, mark-sheet of Secondary School Examination, PAN card, etc. 3. The correction in the date of birth, as prayed for is refused by the respondent on the ground that the as per the guidelines the correction in the date of birth is permissible only, if the petitioner produces a declaratory order from 1 First Class Judicial Magistrate regarding his correct date of birth. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had produced all requisite documents showing that his correct date of birth is 29.3.1988' yet, the respondent persisting in their obduracy have refused to enter the correct date of birth in the passport issued. Learned counsel submitted that the date of birth mentioned in the Secondary School Examination Certificate deserves to be treated conclusive and there is absolutely no reason as to why the respondents should insist upon a declaratory order in this regard from First Class Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the controversy involved in the instant case, stands covered by order dated 31.10.2011 passed by this Court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 7873/2010 "Piyush Chopra v. Union of India . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that as per clauses 8.1 to 8.3 of the Passport Manual, the change in date of birth could be made only if the petitioner produces a declaratory order passed by the First Class Judicial Magistrate after necessary inquiry and therefore, the action of the respondents in refusing the correction, as prayed for cannot be faulted with. 6. 6. It is to be noticed that in Piyush Chopra case (supra), this Court while I examining the legality and validity of the action of the Passport Authority in ; refusing to correct the date of birth without a declaratory order from the First Class Judicial Magistrate, this Court observed: "After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of the view that in the present case, the respondents have chosen to proceed in a rather perfunctory manner and have put forward the unnecessary demand or the so-called declaratory order regarding date of birth while ignoring all other material on record. The petitioner has stated his date of birth as 7.10.1984'. His date of birth, when he was a minor, got mentioned in his mother's passport as 7.11.1984'. The discrepancy has only being of a month where for the petitioner has furnished repeated explanations and in proof of his correct date of birth, has furnished several of the documents including his Secondary School Certificate and Driving Licence. It has not been shown as to what cogent evidence was available with the respondents to discard the date of birth stated in the Secondary School Certificate. It has also not been shown as to how the date of birth of the petitioner as stated in his mother's passport was taken conclusive by the respondents. Of course, the discrepancy does appear but has not been of such a magnitude or serious nature where for the petitioner is driven to seek a declaratory order particularly when Secondary School Certificate is available and ordinarily, the date of birth stated therein is to be accepted as correct. In the given set of facts and circumstances, this Court is unable to find any justification where for the respondents have chosen to keep the application made by the petitioner pending for all this time. In the given fact situation, even the demand of penalty [as indicated in the communication dated 4.5.2009 (Annex.6)] does not appear justified. It has not been shown if the petitioner has deliberately made any such misstatement for which he was required to be penalised. In the given fact situation, even the demand of penalty [as indicated in the communication dated 4.5.2009 (Annex.6)] does not appear justified. It has not been shown if the petitioner has deliberately made any such misstatement for which he was required to be penalised. It would rather be a travesty of justice if the respondents are permitted to avoid issuance of passport to the petitioner even when he has stated the date of birth in conformity with what has been mentioned in his academic career and in all the related documents including the Secondary School Certificate. Having regard to the circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be allowed with necessary directions to the respondents. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed; the respondents are directed to process the application made by the petitioner for issuance of passport immediately and, for the purpose of date of birth, shall take the date mentioned in the petitioner's Secondary School Certificate as conclusive. Further, the respondents are held not entitled to recover any penalty from the petitioner and the amount of Rs. 2,000/- as deposited by the petitioner towards penalty shall be refunded to him. The requirements of this order shall be carried out by the respondents within 30 days from today". 7. Admittedly, in the instant case, the correction sought by the petitioner is only with regard to the month wherein he was born in the year 1988. The petitioner has produced the proof of his correct date of birth, which includes Secondary School Examination Certificate and PAN card. In considered opinion of this Court, the correction sought for by the petitioner is very minor correction and it appears to be a bona fide error that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned when he applied for the passport and therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondents are not justified in refusing the correction in the date of birth, as prayed for. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-issue the passport after correction in the date of birth of the petitioner as prayed for, taking the date of birth as mentioned in his Secondary School Examination Certificate as conclusive without insisting upon a declaratory order from First Class Judicial Magistrate. The order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from today. No order as to costs.Writ Petition allowed. *******