Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 15054
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J
Srimathi – Appellant
Versus
The Regional Passport Officer – Respondent
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.K.Myilsamy
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Simon, CGSC
The court directed timely consideration of the petitioner's request for passport rectification, emphasizing procedural compliance.
Headnote:The petitioner's application for rectification of her date of birth in her passport was rejected, compelling her to file a writ petition. The court mandated the first respondent to consider her representation with the relevant documents within three weeks, emphasizing compliance with legal procedures. The petitioner must be granted the relief sought as warranted under the law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's application for passport rectification. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's directive for administrative consideration. (Para 4) |
| 3. outcome of writ petition. (Para 5) |
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.1, 2 to renew the petitioner’s passport bearing No.F6352767 by rectifying her date of birth as 04.05.1966 instead of 04.09.1966 within a time bound manner by considering her representation dated 4.11.2025.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was born on 04.05.1966 at her residence in Udumalpet, Tiruppur District and therefore, no birth certificate was obtained at the time of her birth. In the year 1994, she applied for a passport. While filling the passport application, certain inadvertent errors occurred, and consequently, her date of birth was wrongly recorded as 04.09.1966 instead of
04.05.1966.
3. Thereafter, the passport was renewed on 13.02.2006 and again on
08.02.2016. Recently, the petitioner noticed that her date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the passport. She therefore, submitted an on-line application seeking rectification of the date of birth along with renewal of the passport and furnished relevant documents substantiating her correct date of birth. However, the said request was rejected. Hence, she submitted a representation dated 4.11.2025 to that effect. Since the same has not been considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 4.11.2025 along with the documents produced by the petitioner substantiating her date of birth and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
