SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Ms. Manju Rani Hara – Appellant
Versus
Regional Passport Officer & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2654 of 2023
Decided On : 21-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil & Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocates for UOI.

Unwed mothers have the right to apply for passports for their minor children without insisting upon mentioning the biological father's name.

Headnote:

Passport - Unwed Mother - The court directed the passport office to issue a passport to the petitioner's minor daughter without insisting upon mentioning the biological father's name.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an unwed mother, applied for a passport for her minor daughter without mentioning the biological father's name. The passport office delayed the issuance despite the petitioner's explanations.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the passport office to issue the passport without insisting upon mentioning the biological father's name, and the passport was subsequently received by the petitioner.

Issues: The main issue was the insistence of the passport office on mentioning the biological father's name in the minor daughter's passport application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the rights of unwed mothers and directed the passport office to issue the passport without insisting upon mentioning the biological father's name.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition as the passport had been issued, and the relief sought no longer survived.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner-Ms. Manju Rani Hara is an unwed mother who had applied for the passport of her 8 months old minor-daughter in the Delhi Passport Office. The appointment for verification of the Petitioner's daughter's passport application was fixed and accordingly, on 23rd September, 2022, the Petitioner reached the passport office with her minor daughter. At the Passport office, the Petitioner was asked to provide details of the minor's biological father. The Petitioner provided explanation as to why she is unable to give the name of the biological father to the passport office. She also met the Deputy Passport Officer. and explained her circumstances. It is stated that the Deputy Passport Officer suggested that the Petitioner should approach Respondent No. 1- Regional Passport Officer for further assistance. The Petitioner booked an appointment for 7th October 2022, to meet with Respondent No. 1-Regional Passport Officer('RPO').

3. On 7th October 2022, the Petitioner was then requested by the RPO to give the reasons for non- mentioning the name of the biological father in writing on a blank paper, which the Petitioner is stated to have complied with. However, despite several weeks having passed, post the said event of submission of reasons, the passport was not issued. Even the username and the password which was allotted to the Petitioner had expired. Accordingly, the Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the issuance of the passport without insisting upon mentioning the biological father's name.

4. The prayer in this writ petition reads as under:

"A. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby directing Respondent No. 1 to issue passport to Petitioner's minor daughter, without insisting upon mentioning father's name; and

B. Pass any other or further directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience, in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

5. On 2nd March, 2023, after hearing the parties, the following order was passed by this Court:

"3. The Petitioner who is a single mother seeks issuance of the passport without recording the name of the biological father.

4. Ld. counsel for the Respondent to seek instructions and produce the original file of the passport office which includes the reasons which have been submitted by the Petitioner for non-recording of the biological father's name.

5. Petitioner may join the proceedings online or in person, on the next date of hearing."

6. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, ld. Counsel today submits that on 1st March, 2023, when instructions were sought prior to the last hearing, an email was received by his office that the application has already been processed without mentioning the name of the father. However, since his attention was not drawn to the said email, he could not mention the same to the Court on the said date.

7. Today, ld. Counsel Ms. Nishi has submitted that the Passport Authorities have thereafter conducted the verification and the passport has been received by her on 16th March, 2023.

8. Under these circumstances, the prayer in the writ petition stands satisfied.

9. In the present case, the passport having been issued, the relief sought no longer survives. The present petition with all pending applications, if any, is disposed of in these terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top