ABHILASHA

1. Rule. Mr. Hriday Buch, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, waives service of notice of Rule, for the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the petition being finally heard and decided.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with a prayer to direct the respondent Regional Passport Authority to renew the Passport, incorporating therein the name of the adoptive father of the petitioner, and to quash and set aside the Communication dated 29-03-2011. whereby the application of the petitioner dated 07-03-2011, has been rejected on the sole ground that the adoption of the petitioner has not been done in accordance with the requirements of • Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 ("The Adoptions and Maintenance Act" for short).

3. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the petition, is that the petitioner has been adopted by Shri Karshanbhai Patel as per the Registered Adoption Deed dated 09-04-2009, as the adoptive father of the petitioner has six daughters and no son. According to the petitioner, the rituals of adoption have been conducted as per the customs of the community to which the petitioner belongs. The name of the adoptive father of the petitioner has been entered in the Ration Card, Driving Licence, and Election Card of the petitioner, as being the father of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that, on applying for renewal of his Passport, the application has been rejected by the respondent by impugned order dated 29-03-2011, on the ground that the adoption of the petitioner has not been made in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(iv) of the Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approach'2d this Court by way of the present petition.

4. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein the stand has been reiterated 411 that the adoption of the petitioner has not been made in accordance with the provisions of the Adoptions and Maintenance Act, as the petitioner has been adopted at the age of 34 years whereas, as per the Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the adoption cannot take place after the age of 15 years. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply, that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision rendered by the respondent, he may file an appeal to the Chief Passport Officer. Ministry of External Affairs, as per Section 11of the Passports Act, 1967 ("The Passports Act" for short).

5. Mr. M.T.M.Hakim, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent is beyond the jurisdiction vested in him as per provisions of Section 5(2) of the Passports Act. therefore, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that, as per sub Section (2) of Section 5. the Passport Authority is vested with the power to conduct an inquiry, if considered necessary, before issuing or refusing a Passport. However, the said provision of law docs not empower the Passport Authority to render a finding regarding 31 the legality, or otherwise, of the adoption, as such a finding can only be given by a Competent Court. It is further urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. that as per Section 16 of the Adoptions and Maintenance Act, there is a legal presumption that a registered document regarding adoption shall be presumed to have been made in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, unless it is proved otherwise. It is urged that in the present case, there is no material on record to indicate that the adoption of the petitioner has been proved to be not in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(iv) of the Adoptions, and Maintenance Act, as it was never challenged before any Court of law, therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction, and may be