RAMDAS M. PILLAI V. THE UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/34662/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Ramadas M. Pillai, an Indian-born U.S. citizen, who applied for Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status but faced rejection due to discrepancies in his name across different legal documents. Initially, he held an Indian passport and later acquired a U.S. passport and citizenship. The Consulate General of India in San Francisco rejected his OCI application, citing the need for a court order to rectify the name discrepancies between his Indian and U.S. documents. The petitioner subsequently obtained a certificate from the Tahsildar, Cherthala, affirming that all names refer to the same individual. The High Court of Kerala, upon reviewing the case, directed the Consulate to reconsider the application in light of the new certificate.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722270 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Passport; Overseas Citizen of India; Name discrepancy; Naturalization certificate; OCI registration

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 34662 of 2017 PETITIONER/S: *RAMDAS M. PILLAI (CORRECTED) S/O.RAMA PANICKER, AGED 58,MANAKKATTAMPALLY, MUHAMMA PO,ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PO, 688525(PRESENT ADDRESS 22985 ROSEMOUNT,MURRRIETA, CALIFORNIA 92562,(THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) * THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER CORRECTED AS “RAMADAS” INSTEAD OF 'RAMDAS' AS PER ORDER DATED 7/8/2019 IN IA NO. 1/2019 BY ADV. SRI.J.OMPRAKASH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 110001 2 THE CONSELATE GENERAL OF INDIA SANFRANSCISCO, 540, ARGUELLO,BLVD, SF, CA 94118, THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA 3 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA, PIN 588524 BY ADVS. R1 & R2 SRI.S.BIJU, CGC R3 SMT. VINITHA.B, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34662 of 2017 2 JUDGMENT Petitioner was born in Kerala and later went to U.S.A for higher studies. Petitioner was a holder of an Indian Passport, however later petitioner became a U.S. Citizen and thereafter petitioner was issued with a U.S. Passport. However taking into account, the policy of the Government of India, a person born in India, and is having a foreign Passport, entitled to enjoy the status as Overseas Citizen of India, petitioner has submitted an application before the 2nd respondent, which was rejected as per Ext.P6 order assigning the following reason. “REJECTED BY THE CONSULATE (FILE HAS BEEN REVIEWED THRICE)-COURT ORDER FRO NAME CHANGE IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING DISCREPANCY: 1.NAME ON INDIAN PASSPORT: RAMADAS MANAKKATTAM PALLY RAMA PANICKER. NAME ON US NATURALIZATOIN CERTIFICATE: RAMADAS RAMA PILLAI. NAME ON US PASSPORT: RAMADAS M PILLAI. AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ALONG WITH INCOME TAX ID. APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT COURT ORDER FOR NAME CHANGE THIS TIME. YOUR MAY FILE FOR NAME WP(C).No. 34662 of 2017 3 CHANGE TO THE NEAREST COURT BUT APPLICATION WILL NOT PROGRESS WITHOUT THE GRANTED COURT ORDER FOR NAME CHANGE”. 2. According to the petitioner, thereafter petitioner has approached the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Cherthala and has secured Ext.P7 certificate dated 26.10.2017, stating that the person mentioned in the U.S. Passport as Ramdas M.Pillai and the person mentioned in the official records of India and the surnames suffixed as Ramdas M.R and Ramdas Manakkattampally Rama Panicker having Indian Passport No.1929609 respectively are one and the same person. Therefore the sole relief now sought for is re-consideration of the application taking into account Ext.P7 certificate issued by the Tahsildar. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Central Government Counsel for respondent 1 and 2, I am of the considered opinion that, the subject matter is to be reconsidered taking into account Ext.P7, in order to enable the petitioner to WP(C).No. 34662 of 2017 4 secure the benefits of the scheme launched by the Government of India. 4. In that view of the matter Ext.P6 is quashed and there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter, taking into account Ext.P7 certificate issued by the 3rd respondent dated 26.10.2017, at the earliest and at any rate, within two months form the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of,accordingly. Sd/- SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE Hmh WP(C).No. 34662 of 2017 5 The name 'Ramdas' occurring in the 5th and 7th lines of paragraph No.2 of the judgment dated 08.03.2019 in W.P.(C) No.34662/2017 is corrected as 'Ramadas' as per order dated 07.08.2019 in I.A.No.1/2019 in W.P.(C).No.34662/2017. Sd/- JOINT REGISTRAR WP(C).No. 34662 of 2017 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 09.09.2017 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION DATED 31.01.2003 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PASSPORT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 22.02.2017 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OCI REGISTRATOIN APPLICATION DATED 10.10.2017 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 10.10.2017 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.10.2017 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR CHERTHALA DATED 26.10.2017 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL "