Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3710 (MAD)

S. Paul Jeyastan v. Passport Officer

2015-12-04

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

body2015
ORDER : The petitioner is aggrieved against the proceedings dated 01.04.2011, issued by the first respondent and consequently, seeking for a direction to the first respondent to return the original passport of the petitioner bearing No.J. 5659868 dated 14.02.2011. 2. It is seen that the petitioner applied for issuance of passport before the first respondent and based on such application, the first respondent issued a passport bearing No.J. 5659868, dated 14.02.2011. After nearly two months of issuance of such passport, the first respondent issued the present impugned communication to the petitioner calling upon him to give an explanation within ten days as to why action should not be initiated against the petitioner by alleging that the petitioner has obtained the passport by furnishing a false document, namely, birth certificate. According to the first respondent, the birth certificate submitted by the petitioner along with the application was not issued by the Commissioner, Registrar of Births and Deaths III Division, Thoothukudi Municipality. On 12.04.2011, the petitioner's father sent an explanation to the impugned notice and however, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court seeking the relief as stated supra. 3. This Court, by an order dated 24.07.2011, restraining the first respondent from cancelling the passport till 09.06.2011. Even though the interim order was not extended thereafter, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the first respondent submitted that the passport of the petitioner has not been cancelled, in view of the pendency of the present writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent, wherein, the reasons stated in the impugned notice was elaborated. Thus, according to the first respondent, as the birth certificate enclosed by the petitioner along with the application was found to have been not issued by the second respondent municipality, the petitioner was rightly called upon to give explanation. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is not correct to state that the birth certificate enclosed along with the application was not issued by second respondent and on the other hand, the second respondent, at the time of issuing the birth certificate, omitted to make entries in the birth register maintained by them and therefore, such omission cannot be considered, as if, the certificate issued by the second respondent at that point of time, is a bogus one. Apart from saying so, the learned counsel further submitted that by way of abundance caution, the petitioner's father approached the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin and filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.4225 of 2015 to direct the Municipality to make the necessary entry in the relevant records regarding the birth of the petitioner as 26.05.1989 and the learned Judicial Magistrate through his order, dated 16.07.2015, allowed the application and directed the Municipality to make entry in the birth register showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 26.05.1989. He further submitted that based on the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi, the second respondent has also issued another birth certificate on 28.07.2015 showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 26.05.1989. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel that there is no suppression of any material fact nor it can be contended that the petitioner has filed any bogus certificate before the first respondent. 6. Mr.G.R.Swaminthan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the first respondent submitted that as the first respondent has issued only a notice calling upon the petitioner to give his explanation, it is for the petitioner to give explanation and satisfy the first respondent by explaining all the facts and circumstances. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that in view of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi, the second respondent has issued the certificate on 28.07.2015 showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 26.05.1989. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The present writ petition is filed against the notice issued by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to give explanation. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to give explanation and satisfy the first respondent as to how the allegation made in the said notice against the petitioner is factually in correct. No doubt, the petitioner's father has made an explanation dated 12.04.2011. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to give explanation and satisfy the first respondent as to how the allegation made in the said notice against the petitioner is factually in correct. No doubt, the petitioner's father has made an explanation dated 12.04.2011. However, in view of the subsequent developments that had taken place after filing of the writ petition, namely, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi, as well as birth certificate issued by the second respondent Municipality, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has to give further explanation in detail by enclosing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi and also the certificate issued by the second respondent Municipality also by explaining as to under what circumstances, the birth certificate enclosed along with the application at the time of making the same in the year 2011 came to be issued by the second respondent Municipality. Needless to say that if an explanation is given as stated supra by the petitioner with supportive documents, the same shall be considered by the first respondent and appropriate order shall be passed on the same taking note of all the subsequent developments as well. The first respondent shall pass such an order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.