1 APHC010585822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 30758/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK MUSKAAN, D/O.LATE ABDUL MAJEED SHAIK,AGED 23 YEARS R/O.H.NO.14-4-135, 4TH LINE, POTTURIVARITHOTA, NEAR MARKAS MASJID, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, PARLIAMENT SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO.27-37-158, GOVERNORPET, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520002 ...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 toissue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2ndrespondent in keeping the petitioners reissue application of Tatkaal Passport on hold on the ground of 2 discrepancy in fathers name in educational certificates as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the 2nd respondent to process and reissue the petitioners Tatkaal Passport on the basis of the documents already submitted, without insisting on correction in SSC certificate or any other educational certificates and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the respondents to process the petitioners application for reissue of Tatkaal Passport forthwith, without insisting on correction in SSC certificate or any other educational certificates, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HABIBULLA SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 30758 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in keeping the petitioner’s Tatkal Passport reissue application, on hold, on the ground of discrepancy in father’s name in educational certificates as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct 2ndrespondent to process and reissue the petitioner’s Tatkal Passport on the basis of the documents already submitted, without insisting on correction in S.S.C.Certificate or any other educational certificates. 2. Case of the petitioner herein is that she obtained passport under Tatkal scheme on 27.4.2018 and the same was valid up to 20.6.2020. The said passport was issued after due verification of all necessary particulars and enquiries, by mentioning her father’s name as ‘Abdul Majeed Shaik’, which was supported by his own passport, Aadhar card and other identity documents submitted along with her application. She travelled abroad pursuant to issuance of the said 4 passport. As the said passport expired, she applied for reissue of passport under Tatkal scheme on 24.09.2025 by enclosing all relevant documents. But, the respondent- authorities kept the said application ‘on hold’ on the ground that father’s name of the petitioner has to be corrected in Secondary School Certificate (SSC). 3. Respondents filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that the petitioner applied for re-issue of passport No.S1476177 vide File No.VJ2075680771025 on 24.09.2025, in minor to major and deletion of Emigration Check Required(ECR) category; that she obtained the earlier passport by submitting study certificate and parents passport; that in her father’s passport, his name is mentioned as ‘Shaik Abdul Majeed’, and based on the father’s passport, the earlier passport was issued to her with father’s name ‘Shaik Abdul Majeed’, and the application was processed in Emigration Check Required status, as she was a minor then. It is further stated that now, the petitioner furnished Secondary School Certificate as Emigration Check Not Required proof with her father’s name mentioned as ‘Abdul Majeed Shaik’ and the same was filled in the application form also; that the application was kept on 5 hold, seeking clarification regarding correct father’s name; that as the respondents have not received any response from the petitioner, a file closure alert vide Letter dated 23.11.2025 was issued to the petitioner, and the file was closed on 24.12.2025, and hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. 4. Heard both the counsel. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, reiterated the averments in their respective pleadings. Perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that earlier, a passport No.S1476177 was issued to the petitioner on 27.4.2018. By the time of issue of the said passport, the petitioner was a minor. According to the respondents, the said passport was issued to the petitioner based on her study certificate and parents passports. In the said passport, name of her father is mentioned as ‘Abdul Majeed Shaik’. The earlier passport was valid up to 20.06.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner made application on 24.09.2025 for re-issue of the passport. She 6 submitted requisite documents therefor, including her earlier passport, Aadhar card, her father’s passport and Aadhar card, her Secondary School Certificate. In her Secondary School Certificate, her father’s name is mentioned as ‘Shaik Majeed’. In view of the said discrepancy in the name of the father of the petitioner, the respondents kept the said application ‘on hold’. It is the case of the respondents that as they did not receive any response from the petitioner in that regard, a file closure alert vide letter No.FCA/1052392655/25, dated 23.11.2025 was issued to the petitioner, and the file was closed on 24.12.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier a passport has been issued to the petitioner herein on 27.04.2018 and the same was valid up to 20.06.2020, and the respondent authorities did not raise any issue on the earlier occasion; that after lapse of the validity of passport, when the present application was filed for reissuance of passport, the respondent authorities completed documents verification, but to the utter surprise of the petitioner herein, she was asked to correct her Secondary School Certificate. 7 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that father of the petitioner is no more. He relied on Compendium of Instructions/Guidelines relating to issue to Passports in India/Abroad. A perusal of the Compendium of Instructions /Guidelines relating to issue to Passports in India/Abroad goes to show that Chapter-3 thereof deals with ‘Change of Personal Particulars on Reissue of Passports’. Clause 4 of Chapter 3 deals with ‘Change in the name of parents’. Clause 4.2 deals with ‘Change in the name of deceased parents’. Clause 4.2.2 thereof, which deals with ‘Based on documentary proof issued in their life time or name in Death Certificate’, reads thus: “4.2.2. Based on documentary proof issued in their life time or name in Death Certificate: Name of parents as shown in his/her own passport is significant proof of the correct name and is to be accepted on priority. Besides, the names of the parents as shown in educational documents/marriage certificate, birth certificate including revised certificates, etc. can also be accepted as correct, even if these had been issued after the death of the parents.” 8 8. From the above Guidelines/instructions, it is clear that name of the parents as shown in his/her own passport is significant proof of the correct name and the same has to be accepted on priority. 9. In the case on hand, even according to the respondents, the earlier passport was issued to the petitioner based on the study certificate and parents passport. According to the respondents also, petitioner’s father’s name is mentioned as ‘Shaik Abdul Majeed’ in his passport. Therefore, following the aforesaid Guideline/instruction viz. Clause 4.2.2 of Chapter-3 of Compendium of Instructions/Guidelines relating to issue to Passports in India/Abroad, name of the father as shown in his own passport is significant proof of the correct name and the same has to be accepted on priority. In fact, the same was followed by the respondents while issuing her earlier passport. Further, a perusal of the record goes to show that in the Aadhar card and earlier passport of the petitioner, her father’s name is mentioned as ‘Abdul Majeed Shaik’. When there is no dispute with regard to the passport of the petitioner’s father, the same shall be considered by the respondent authorities. 9 10. However, according to the respondents, the file relating to passport application dated 24.09.2025 of the petitioner was closed by them on 24.12.2025. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh application for reissuance of her passport, along with all requisite documents, to the respondents within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Thereafter, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the petitioner’s case, duly considering the name of the father of the petitioner mentioned in his own passport, as ‘Abdul Majeed Shaik’, and pass appropriate orders on her application within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. 11. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _______________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 23.02.2026 MKK/DRK 10 231 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.30758 of 2025 Date: 23.02.2026 MKK/DRK