1. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in issuing the passport to the petitioner's minor daughter as per Ext.P9 application, the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition.

2. The petitioner is an Overseas Indian Citizen, who was born to Indian parents in U.S. She came to India when she was 10 years old. According to the petitioner, since then she was living in India and had her schooling and college educations here. The petitioner states that in a troublesome 'live in' relationship, she gave birth to a girl, who is now 5 years of age. At present, the child is with her. According to the petitioner, there is no litigation till date between the petitioner and the child's father. Now, she wants to go to U.S for job along with the child. There is no one in India to look after the child and, therefore, she applied for a passport for her daughter as per Ext.P9. She had also produced her passport which, according to her, is sufficient as per Rule IV(A)(3)(b) of Schedule III of the Passport Rules, 1980. Ext.P9 application has not been processed and the first respondent is insisting for parent's Indian passport. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

3. In the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the respondents are unable to consider the passport application as per law. According to them, they are vested with the powers to issue passport only to the prescribed classes of persons under the Passport Rules, 1980. According to them, the issue regarding citizenship of the petitioner's minor daughter falls beyond the ambit of PIA or for the Ministry External Affairs. Therefore, according to them, the petitioner has to approach the Ministry of Home Affairs for further assistance in the matter. Their stand is that once the citizenship of the child is established, the petitioner may apply for the child's passport through duly appointed legal guardians as per the established procedures.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

5. Evidently and admittedly too, the petitioner is an Overseas Indian Citizen, who was born to Indian parents in U.S. The definite case of the petitioner is that she came to India when she was 10 years old and she completed the studies. These facts are not disputed by the respondents.

6. Exts.P4 and P5 which are the copies of the secondary school leaving certificate and degree certificate would establish that the petitioner has completed her school as well as degree education in Kerala. At present, she is working as on-line medical transcriptionist in a U.S.Company. Ext.P6 is her PAN card and Ext.P7 is her driving licence. Unfortunately, the petitioner had a 'live in' relationship with one Prasanth Sathyavan. There was an unregistered marriage also between them. Mr. Prasanth was hailing from Bangalore. In that relationship, the petitioner gave birth to her daughter by name Archana Prasanth on 25.5.2009. Ext.P8 is the birth certificate.

7. The petitioner admits that she had a prolonged trouble some life with Mr. Prasanth, who later deserted her and the child eight months ago. Since then, they are living separately. No litigation is either pending or disposed of between them. Mr. Prasanth is a native of Bangalore. This fact is also not denied by the respondents. Now, the petitioner wants to go and work in U.S and she wants to take her child with her as there is nobody to look after the child. It is in this context, she made Ect.P9 application.

8. Now various difficulties are expressed by the respondents in issuing the passport as per Ext.P9 application. However, the respondents maintained the stand that once the citizenship of the petitioner's minor daughter is established, they will be in a position to process Ext.P9 application and to issue passport to the child.

9. The petitioner points out that she appeared before the first respondent who insiste