High Court reiterates that without first applying to the passport authority with supporting documents, a writ petition seeking correction in passport particulars is premature. Confirms and upholds existing procedure; authority of this ruling is binding within jurisdiction and persuasive elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/23649/2025 of DEEPAK KUMAR THROUGH MOTHER MEENA KUMARI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR |
| CNR | PHHC011187942025 |
| Date of Registration | 12-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab & Haryana; Persuasive in other jurisdictions |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law / Immigration Law (Passport Act and Procedures) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition for correction in a passport’s place of birth is maintainable without first submitting an application to the passport authority. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that since the petitioner had not submitted any application for correction of the place of birth in the passport, the writ petition was premature. The respondent authority indicated readiness to consider such an application within eight weeks if submitted with supported documents. The petition was accordingly disposed of with liberty to approach the authority first, reaffirming the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedy prior to invoking writ jurisdiction. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner sought correction of place of birth in his passport through a writ petition, though he had not made any formal application to the passport authorities for such correction. The respondent stated willingness to decide any such application as per law within eight weeks of its submission. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court of India |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that writ petitions for correction of passport details are not maintainable unless the applicant has first approached the passport authority through the prescribed procedure.
- Affirms that authorities are obliged to decide any such application accompanied by supporting documents within a specified period (eight weeks in this case) per court direction.
- Lawyers must ensure clients exhaust the available statutory remedy before seeking writ relief.
- Provides clear procedural guidance for passport correction cases: approach the authority first, and only if there is delay or denial, consider a writ.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that the petitioner had not submitted any application to the passport authority for correction of the place of birth.
- The respondent (Union of India) submitted to the court that upon submission of a duly filled application, along with supporting documents, the passport authority would consider and decide the application within eight weeks in accordance with law.
- On this assurance, the Court disposed of the writ, indicating that there was no cause for interference at this stage, and directing that statutory procedure be followed before seeking judicial intervention.
- The decision confirms the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked without utilising available administrative remedies.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought correction of the place of birth in the passport by invoking writ jurisdiction.
Respondent (Union of India)
- Submitted that the petitioner had not yet submitted any application for such correction.
- Stated that if a proper application with necessary documents is submitted, the same will be considered and decided within eight weeks.
Factual Background
The petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition seeking correction of his place of birth as mentioned in his passport. However, it was revealed during the proceedings that the petitioner had not submitted any formal application for correction to the passport authorities. The respondent authority assured the court that upon submission of the requisite application and supporting documents, a decision would be rendered within eight weeks. Accordingly, the court disposed of the petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment addressed the procedural requirement under relevant administrative law, specifically concerning correction of particulars in a passport.
- The Court did not interpret any statutory provisions in detail but relied on compliance with the prescribed authority’s process for change/correction, reiterating the statutory remedy must be used before judicial recourse.
Procedural Innovations
- Fixed a clear time-frame (eight weeks) within which the passport authorities must decide any fresh application for correction, pursuant to submission by the petitioner.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court affirms existing law that statutory remedies must be exhausted before seeking writ relief.