Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57431
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
NISSAR V.K. – Appellant
Versus
THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 20441 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.HARIHARAN, PRAVEEN.H, K.S.SMITHA, B.R.SINDU, REMYA MURALI, V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR, AFNA V.P.
For the Respondents: SREEJITH V.S.
The renewal of a driving licence cures original defects, but altering the birth date on a licence is impermissible if it indicates issuance while the holder was a minor.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a correction in the date of birth on his driving licence, arguing that a prior court judgment indicated the renewal of a licence cures any original defects. The court found that allowing the correction would mean the licence was issued while the petitioner was a minor, violating the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, it rejected the request but instructed to consider the renewal of the licence according to law. The petition was disposed of with the direction for renewal consideration and rejection of the birth date correction.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks correction of date of birth on driving licence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. renewal of a licence cures prior defects. (Para 3) |
| 3. court directs consideration of renewal and denies birth date change. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 request made for correcting the date of birth of the petitioner in Ext.P1 driving licence as 27.02.1977 instead of 27.02.1975 stated in the licence issued.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the learned Government Pleader pointing out that the petitioner was issued with a licence on 27.02.1975 at the age of 18. If the request of the petitioner for correction is allowed, it will be as if the licence was issued while he was a minor, which will be a violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act .
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in V.P.Gopalan Nambiyar & G.Balagangadharan Nair[1976 KLT SN 60 (C.No.135)] for the proposition that the renewal of a licence really takes effect as a fresh grant, and assuming that there was some infirmity at the time of the grant of the original licence, the defect has been cured by the renewal obtained subsequent to having obtained majority.
4. In view of the above judgment, the request of the petitioner for renewing the licence shall be considered in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. However, the prayer of the petitioner to correct the date of birth will stand rejected.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
