The above writ petitions were heard together, since it dealt with the common question of correction of date of birth in Passports, as per Circular No.VI/401/2/5/2001 dated 18.04.2001 as amended on 29.10.2007 and 15.01.2008.

2. The petitioners in these cases are unable to speak of the actual date of issuance of the Passport. The respondent-Passport Issuing Authority [for brevity "PIA"] also does not have any records relating to the time of issuance of the Passport, since all the Passports have been issued twenty years back. Admittedly the Passports were renewed more than once. All the petitioners require change in the date of birth as originally entered in the Passport. They now assert a different date of birth as against that disclosed in the Passport on the basis of their Secondary School Leaving Certificate [for brevity "SSLC"], Transfer Registers issued by the School, Aadhar Card, Election Identity Card and so on and so forth; either one or more of them. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.14538 of 2015 alone relies on a Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, which is said to have been issued in the year 2012. The petitioners also does not speak of any specific cause of action which precipitated the need for the above writ petitions. The correction ranges from five years to seven years, all seeking advancement of their date of birth, an attempt, for whatever reason, to be styled younger than that they would be ascribed in accordance with the Passport. The petitioners place reliance on various decisions of this Court.

3. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India seeks to distinguish each of the decisions, to contend that the correction cannot be granted for the asking and it can only be in accordance with the Circular. In cases where the correction is within 2 years, the Circular also requires that a Court order should be obtained. However, the said "Court order" indicates a declaration from the Civil Court and not the invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution, is the argument.

4. The law on the subject has been urged by both sides relying on various decisions, which shall be noticed in the order of their pronouncement. The first in point, noticing that there are a number of decisions on that count, is Jismol Joseph v. Union of India [2003 (3) KLT 265], wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court reiterated the position that the declaratory orders as required under the Circular could be issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Later a learned Single Judge, in Aboo v. The Regional Passport Officer [2008 (1) KLT 992] found that Jismol Joseph (supra) did not trace the declaration to any specific source of power. It was also noticed that the power was on the basis of a Note in the information booklet, which required the correction of date of birth on orders issued by a Judicial Magistrate. The Note stood deleted and a Court order, to which reference was made in the amended Circular, was held to be a declaratory order passed by a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction.

5. In an unreported decision of this Court in W.P.(C). No.17606 of 2010 dated 20.07.2010 [Vijayakumar v. Union of India] another learned Single Judge, considered the decision in Aboo (supra) and found that such a declaration would be required only if there are conflicting certificates issued by two different authorities. In the said case, since the extract from the School Admission Register alone was relied on, it was directed that the PIA could consider the correction of the date of birth.

6. Noticing the obvious conflict between Jismol (supra) and Aboo (supra), yet another learned Single Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench. The Division Bench in Raveendran Pillai v. Vice Consul Consulate General of India, Dubai [2011 (3) KLT 652] found unequivocally that for making alteration to the date of birth in Passport, the holders of such Passports would have to get declaratory orders from the competent Civil Courts. This, as