2.3 Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure P-11), calling upon him to explain the nearly forty-year delay in seeking correction in the Date of Birth in the passport and the reason for travelling on a passport with an incorrect Date of Birth. The petitioner furnished a detailed reply (Annexure P-12) to the said notice.

2.4 However, vide letter dated 10.04.2024 (Annexure P-14), the passport authorities rejected the petitioner’s request for issuance of a corrected passport.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has held different passports for over forty years, all consistently recording his Date of Birth as 01.01.1967, and he never raised any objection at any stage despite repeatedly renewing his passport and travelling abroad on the same. It is argued that the petitioner’s request for correction after such an extraordinary delay, based on a Birth Certificate registered only in 2022, is neither credible nor acceptable. The authorities issued a Show Cause Notice but the petitioner failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the long delay or for using the allegedly incorrect Date of Birth for decades. It is contended that the rejection of the petitioner’s request under Section 5(2)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, and dismissal of his appeal under Section 11 ibid are lawful and warrant no interference.

7. Here, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Sunita Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors.”, W.P.(C) 10839 of 2015, wherein, after an exhaustive consideration of the judicial precedents governing determination of Date of Birth, it has reaffirmed the primacy of the Birth Certificate over all other documents. While doing so, the Court took note of several authoritative pronouncements, some of which are as under:-

“(A) A Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Bansi Ram Naru Ram v. Jit Ram Gehru Ram held that as against the evidence as to age in birth registers, the entry in school records is considered to be of inferior quality; the entry in birth register was held to be much more contemporaneous than the entry in school register and therefore more reliable and inspiring greater confidence.

(C) Supreme Court in Harpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1981) 1 SCC 560 held that since the entry in a birth and death register is made by concerned official in discharge of his official duties, it is admissible in evidence and it is not necessary to examine the author thereof.

(G) Supreme Court in Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 584 held that entries in births and deaths register made by a public servant in discharge of official duty are relevant and admissible in evidence.

(L) Supreme Court in CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar (2009) 7 SCC 283 held that entry in a birth register prevails over an entry in school register. It was further held that entries in a birth and death register raise a presumption of correctness.

(N) The High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Surender v. State of Haryana held that the certified copy of birth certificate is admissible in evidence without any further proof.

(P) The High Court of Punjab & Haryana again in Ms. Seerat Khara v. Central Board of Secondary Education held that birth certificate being a public document is presumed to be genuine in terms of Sections 79 & 80 of the Evidence Act.

“16. To me it appears:

(I) That the respondents, at the time of issuance of Passport and for recording date of birth therein, should insist upon the applicant producing the Birth Certificate and only if the applicant states that his/her birth was not registered under the law aforesaid should other proof of date of birth be accepted. Ordinarily, the applicant should be asked to resort to delayed registration procedure under Section 13 supra.

(II) That in the event of the applicant, at the time of issuance of Passport states that his/her birth was not regis