PRATHAM SANJAYKUMAR PATEL v. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
SCA/26937/2022 · 2026-03-20
Hemant M Prachchhak
body2022
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2022 DAILYLAW 1867 (GUJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2022 DAILYLAW 1867 (GUJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
C/SCA/26937/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26937 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No ================================================================ PRATHAM SANJAYKUMAR PATEL Versus THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER ================================================================ Appearance: MR PRANJAL M BUCH WITH MR AG JOSHI(365) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 20/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Pradip Bhate, learned counsel for the respondent waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for nal hearing today.
2. Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 14,19(1)(d),21 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Passports Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, 1980 seeking following reliefs:
C/SCA/26937/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent- authority, their o'cers, agents etc to accept and entertain the petitioner's application for fresh / renewal of passport and to issue the fresh /renewed Passport with petitioner's correct Name i.e. Patel PrathamSanjaykumar instead of Patel PrathamUday as mentioned in the passport. (B) Pending, hearing and /nal disposal of this petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent-authority, their o'cers, agents etc to process the petitioner's application for fresh / renewal of passport and to issue the fresh / renewed Passport with petitioner's correct Name i.e. Patel Pratham Sanjaykumar in place of Patel PrathamUday; (C) Be pleased to pass such other and further relief's, as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require;”
3.
Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner was born on 1st December, 2002 at Vadodara and as per the birth certi cate the name of the petitioner is mentioned as Pratham Sanjay Kantilal Patel. That, Mr. Uday Lalitchandra Patel, a friend and relative of the petitioner’s father had adopted the petitioner with the consent of the petitioner’s father as the petitioner’s father was incapable of providing care to the petitioner. That, the adoption deed was entered on 07.11.2006 and it was registered on 09.11.2006. Thereafter, in the year 2017, father of the petitioner and Mr. Uday Lalitchandra Patel had again made a deed for cancellation of the aforesaid adoption on 01.04.2017 wherein it has been stated that the father of the petitioner wants the petitioner back and therefore both the
C/SCA/26937/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 parties have willingly entered into the cancellation of adoption deed. That, the petitioner had applied for passport and the father of the petitioner had written letter to the respondent stating that, the adoption deed of the petitioner which has been executed on 07.11.2006 has been cancelled vide cancellation adoption deed dated 01.04.2017. That, all the necessary documents like PAN Card, Adhar Card, School certi cates etc carry the correct name of petitioner as Pratham Sanjaykumar Patel. That, request was made to respondent authority to issue new passport of the petitioner with necessary correction in existing passport with petitioner's correct name i.e. Patel Pratham Sanjaykumar instead of Patel PrathamUday. However, the application was not entertained by the respondent authority and hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the materials available on record. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have considered the facts of the petition. It appears that the petitioner was adopted by the relative and friend of the petitioner’s father but consequently in the year 2017, the adoption deed was willingly cancelled and the petitioner’s biological father took him back. The petitioner had made an application to respondent authority for fresh / renewal of passport of the petitioner with his corrected name but the same was not entertained by the respondent authority. Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/26937/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
6.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and averments made in the petition, the matter deserves to be allowed. 7. In the result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall prefer a fresh application before the respondent – authority along with the relevant documentary evidences disclosing the fact that earlier adoption deed which he had led along with the application was cancelled and consequently, the application for fresh / renewal of his passport is being made using the name of the petitioner’s biological father i.e. Patel Pratham Sanjaykumar instead of Patel Pratham Uday as mentioned in the passport. The petitioner is permitted to le the application before the respondent-authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order and the respondent – authority shall decide the same in accordance with law, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. If the application is found to be in
order, the respondent - authority shall issue the passport in the name of the petitioner, reBecting the name of his biological father. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/03/2026 18:03:49