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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
ABDUL MUNEER C.K. – Appellant
Versus
THE PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 41558 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.T.P.SAJID, SRI.K.P.MOHAMED SHAFI, SMT.SHIFA LATHEEF, SHRI.MUHAMMED HAROON A.N., SMT.SREESHMA B. CHANDRAN, SHRI.MOHEMED FAVAS, SHRI.HASHARURAHIMAN U., SHRI.MUHAMMED BILAL K.
For the Respondents: ADV O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

A court can direct a passport authority to correct a date of birth in a passport if appropriate documentation is provided.

Headnote:This case involves a writ petition filed for a mandamus directing the correction of the petitioner's date of birth in his passport from 28.06.1964 to 02.02.1970, supported by various documents. The court found it necessary to record the submission regarding the petitioner's fresh application made to the Passport Authority, ordering the authority to consider this application within six weeks as per lawful procedure. The ultimate ruling directed that the application be processed in accordance with the law, ensuring adherence to proper documentation.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers.

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s application dated 15.10.2025 seeking correction of his date of birth in the passport, in accordance with law, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

ii) Issue a further writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the passport from 28.06.1964 to 02.02.1970, in accordance with the supporting documents produced as Exhibits P1 to P6.

iii) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv) To dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents.”

2. On 10.02.2026, this court had recorded the submission of the learned DSGI that the petitioner had not approached the Passport Authority concerned or produced the relevant documents.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by both sides that the petitioner has since made a fresh application and the Passport Authority has directed him to produce certain documents for considering the application. This is recorded.

4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for correction of the particulars, in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

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