APHC010633182014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 30805/2014 Between: 1. POORNA CHANDRA VARMA CHINTHALAPALLIPATTA, S/O CHDINTHALAPALLIPATTA SRINIVAS VARMA, R/O H.NO.18-5-498 PRASANTH NAGAR, K.T.ROAD, TIRUPATHI URBAN CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, NEAR CLOCK TOWER, SECUNDERABAD. ...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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing Letter Reference No. OBJ/301595463/14 dated 30-7-2014, directing the petitioner to file civil court decree of declaration to issue fresh passport by changing the petitioner's date of birth as 27-07-1990 as per Certificate issued by the Competent authority i.e. Board of Secondary Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh instead of 10- 06-1983 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Judgment reported in 2005(i) ALT at Page No. 95 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 38503 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 to issue fresh passport by carrying the amendment/correction of the petitioner's date of birth as per S.S.C. Memo /Certificate as 27-07-1990 instead of 10-06-1983 in the Passport bearing No. F3595905 issued on 28-4-2005 by suspending the Letter Reference No. OBJ1301595463/14 dated 30-7-2014 of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MOHD GULAM RASOOL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. 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 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 petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 04.09.2025 KAS