for issuance of a fresh passport with correct date of birth. no need to go for court = Clause (c) of Circular __/401/2/5/2001, dated 18-4-2001, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, inter alia provides as under: “Where the initial entry has been made on the basis of a supportive document issued by one competent authority i.e., School/educational authority and the applicant subsequently requests for a change on the basis of a certificate issued by another competent authority i.e., municipal authorities resulting in conflicting sources of valid proof, the PIA should direct the applicant to obtain a civil order from a competent Court of jurisdiction, certifying the valid date of birth/place of birth.” The respondent is, therefore, directed to receive the petitioner’s application and consider the same in the light of the above-mentioned circular. If the respondent is convinced that the entry of the petitioner’s date of birth in the existing passport is not supported by any certificate issued by the competent authority, he shall consider the Secondary School Certificate of the petitioner, on which she is placing reliance, and issue a fresh passport with the date mentioned in the said certificate as the petitioner’s date of birth. In a converse situation, the respondent shall pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. He shall complete this exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.3524 of 2013

Dated 06.02.2013
Between:

Sabha Fatima Siddiqui
          …Petitioner

And


The Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad
          …Respondent

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Mohammed Zakir Hussain



Counsel for respondent:   --


 

The Court made the following:





                                                                                    

























ORDER:                           
          The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has not been receiving her application for issuance of a fresh passport with correct date of birth. According to the petitioner, in the passport issued on 02.02.1999, her date of birth was wrongly shown as 27.09.1980. When the petitioner allegedly approached the respondent, the latter’s office refused to entertain the application by insisting that she shall obtain an order from the Court for entertaining such application.

Clause (c) of Circular __/401/2/5/2001, dated 18-4-2001, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, inter alia provides as under:
      “Where the initial entry has been made on the basis of a supportive document issued by one competent authority i.e., School/educational authority and the applicant subsequently requests for a change on the basis of a certificate issued by another competent authority i.e., municipal authorities resulting in conflicting sources of valid proof, the PIA should direct the applicant to obtain a civil order from a competent Court of jurisdiction, certifying the valid date of birth/place of birth.”

          The respondent is, therefore, directed to receive the petitioner’s application and consider the same in the light of the above-mentioned circular.  If the respondent is convinced that the entry of the petitioner’s date of birth in the existing passport is not supported by any certificate issued by the competent authority, he shall consider the Secondary School Certificate of the petitioner, on which she is placing reliance, and issue a fresh passport with the date mentioned in the said certificate as the petitioner’s date of birth. In a converse situation, the respondent shall pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. He shall complete this exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner.

          Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.4373 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.










________________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

06th February, 2013               
GHN 



































Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.