IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.933 of 2026 Dated:24.02.2026 Between:

Smt. Tadepalli Chandana …Petitioner AND The Union of India & another …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 issued by respondent No.2 rejecting the request of the petitioner for correction of her year of birth in Passport No.L6503798 from “1987” to “1990” as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents to re-issue the passport with the correct year of birth.

2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Grandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. NVR. Rajyalakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s actual date of birth is 03.05.1990 as reflected in her Birth Certificate issued by Chirala Municipality, Transfer Certificate, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and Voter ID. He submits that while applying for passport in the year 2013, the petitioner had discontinued her education and was not conversant with English. He submits that the petitioner took assistance of a private typist near the passport office who mistakenly entered her year of birth as “1987” instead of “1990” and the petitioner, being unaware of the said mistake, signed the application. He submits that the petitioner came to know of the discrepancy only while applying for re-issuance of her passport after expiry in 2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted five valid proof documents as prescribed under GSR 1170(E) dated 23.12.2016, which clearly establish her date of birth as 03.05.1990. He further submits that the rejection of petitioner’s request solely on the ground that more than five years have elapsed from the date of issuance of passport is arbitrary and contrary to the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2016, which mandates consideration of genuine cases even beyond five years. He further submits that non-correction of the date of birth would cause serious hardship and prejudice to the petitioner.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner’s original passport was issued in the year 2013 showing the date of birth as 03.05.1987 based on documents furnished at that time. She submits that as per existing circular instructions, requests for change of date of birth after a lapse of five years from issuance of passport cannot ordinarily be entertained. She submits that the petitioner had signed the application and affidavit at the time of original issuance of passport and therefore is bound by the declarations made therein. She further submits that the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 was passed in accordance with applicable circular guidelines.

6. The Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for either parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has produced multiple Government-issued documents including Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID and School Transfer Certificate reflecting her date of birth as 03.05.1990. The Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2016 clearly provides that even in cases where more than five years have elapsed from issuance of passport, the Passport Issuing Authority shall consider the explanation of the applicant and assess the genuineness of the claim and shall not reject such requests routinely. In the present case, the impugned order reveals that the petitioner’s request was rejected solely on the ground of lapse of five years, without examining the genuineness of the explanation or the authenticity of the supporting documents. The petitioner has offered a plausible explanation that she was unaware of the incorrect entry at the time of original application and discovered the mistake only at the tim