1 S. No. 33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 2180/2026 CM (5927/2026) SYED JEHANGIR RAZVI …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate. Vs. UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS) AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Yasmeen, Advocate vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE O R D E R 07.09.2026 1. The case set up by the petitioner is that in the passport bearing No. N7086236, the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 11.03.1987. The said passport was valid from 29.03.2016 to 28.03.2026. Upon its expiry, the petitioner applied for re-issuance/renewal of the passport. The respondents, however, vide communication dated 23.05.2026, called upon the petitioner to furnish a clarification/explanation on the ground that the petitioner had allegedly suppressed material facts concerning an earlier passport bearing No. K0679261, wherein a different name and date of birth were stated to have been recorded. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, upon expiry of passport No. N7086236, the petitioner applied for its re-issuance by furnishing the same name, particulars and date of birth as had been furnished and accepted by the respondents at the time of issuance of the aforesaid passport in the year 2016. It is submitted that passport No. N7086236 was accordingly issued with validity from 29.03.2016 Isaq Hameed Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 07.09.26 2 to 28.03.2026. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that once the respondents had accepted the said particulars while issuing the earlier passport, the objection now raised with respect to the very same particulars is unwarranted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the present writ petition is treated as a representation and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's case, including the explanation furnished with regard to the alleged discrepancy, within a stipulated period. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that the respondents have an appropriate mechanism in place for dealing with cases involving discrepancies of the present nature. It is further submitted that, in the event the petitioner satisfactorily explains the discrepancy, the competent authority shall consider the matter and take an appropriate decision with regard to re-issuance of the passport, in accordance with law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made at the Bar. In view of the aforesaid submissions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioner and to accord due consideration to the petitioner's case, including the explanation furnished in the writ petition concerning the alleged discrepancy in the name and/or date of birth. Isaq Hameed Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 07.09.26 3 6. While considering the matter, the competent authority shall also take into consideration the petitioner's contention that the particulars furnished in the present application are pari materiawith those recorded in passport No. N7086236, which was valid from 29.03.2016 to 28.03.2026. 7. Upon such consideration, the competent authority shall pass areasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law and the applicable rules/regulations, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period ofthree months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available by the petitioner to the respondents. 8. Disposed of in the above terms, along with the connected CM(s). (SANJAY PARIHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 07.09.2026 Ishaq Isaq Hameed Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 07.09.26