IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
HARITHA BALAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed for mandamus. (Para 1) |
| 2. petition closed as infructuous. (Para 2) |
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 2nd respondent issue passport of the petitioner’s son at the earliest to adduced the name of new guardian, Rajesh Kappadankandi, forthwith;
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent to consider the Ext. P7 application submitted by the petitioner by virtue of Ext. P8 receipt forthwith;
iii. issue such other writ, order or direction which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. dispense with the translation of the document produced in the Vernacular language.”
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the passport authority that no application has been preferred to issue a passport in the name of a new guardian. Accordingly, the first prayer cannot be granted. As regards the second prayer, on the basis of Exts.P7 and P8, a passport has already been issued showing the mother as the guardian. This is recorded.
Under such circumstances, nothing
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.