APHC010204282014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 38453/2014 Between: 1. CHAMARTHY SUDHAKAR RAJU S/O VENKATA RAMA RAJ, R/O THIPPARAJUPLLI VI, N.R.PALLI PO, AKEPADU, RAJ AMPET MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, AKBAR BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110021. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, D.NO.8-2-215 TO 219 ADJACENT PRASHANTH THEATRE, KURMAGUDA, SECUNDERABAD, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issued an appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein, in directing petitioner to submit a Declaratory Decree from the First Class Judicial Magistrate to effect the change of the date of birth vide Letter No. HYD/843/28(24)POL/LC/2014[H Y5077898617114] dated 18-11-2014 is illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to law and set-aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to change of petitioner date of birth in the Passport as 01-07-1986 as per the SSC Certificate instead of 20- 06-1981 IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 48136 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent herein to change of petitioner date of birth in the Passport as 01-07-1986 as per the SSC Certificate instead of 20-06-1981 by suspending the Letter No. HYD/843/27(24)POL/LC/2014[H Y5077898617114] dated 18-11-2014 of the 2nd respondent herein. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B THIMOTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER: No representation for the petitioner. On the earlier occasions also i.e., on 12.08.2025 and 19.08.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today there is no representation for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for default. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 30.08.2025 KAS