1 / 3 2025:CGHC:56909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6135 of 2025 Mohammad Aslam Khan S/o Late Altaf Khan Aged About 59 Years R/o Faridnagar, Bhilai, House No. 309 Block-C, P.S. Smriti Nagar, Ward No. 8, Kohka, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Its Joint Secretary (CPO), CPV Division, Ministry Of External Affairs, Room No. 8, Patiyala House, Tilak Marg, New Delhi Pin 110001. 2 - The Regional Passport Office Through Regional Passport Office, 1st Floor, Commercial Complex, Sector- 4, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, Rohinipuram, Distt.- Raipur, Pin 492010 Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.11.28 11:05:28 +0530 2 / 3 24/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to Direct the respondent authority to cure the defect and to rectify the date of the birth in the passport which is wrongly mentioned as 25/05/1964 in lieu of 25/05/1969. 10.2 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the petitioner safeguarding her interest.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of preparation of Passport date of birth of petitioner is wrongly mentioned as 25.05.1964 instead of 25.05.1969. He submits that correct date of birth of petitioner is 25.05.1969 which is discernible from mark-sheet of petitioner of Class 5th and Class 10th as also PAN card and therefore a direction be issued to respondent to correct date of birth of petitioner in Passport. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/Union of India submits that the petitioner has straightway filed this writ petition and has not brought to notice of respondent authority about any error in recording his date of birth in Passport as projected in this writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. Considering the aforementioned facts of case, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, in particular considering that petitioner has not approached the authority by way of filing any 3 / 3 application/representation for redressal of his grievance as raised in this writ petition, I am not inclined to enter into merits of claim of petitioner, however, writ petition at this stage is disposed off with liberty to petitioner to submit application before the respondent/competent authority raising his grievance as raised in this writ petition along with supporting documents and in the event petitioner submits application/representation, concerned authority shall consider and take decision on representation in accordance with law, on its own merits, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 3 months from the date of receipt of representation. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen