State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Regional Passport Officer vs Nirmal Singh Sadhanwalia on 2 December, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1076 of 2010
Date of institution : 21.06.2010
Date of decision : 02.12.2013
1. Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, SCO
No.28-32, City Centre, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
2. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Regional
Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Sector 34-A,
Chandigarh.
.......Appellants- Opposite Parties
Versus
Nirmal Singh Sadhanwalia aged about 35 years son of Shri
Sukhchain Singh, resident of Village Sadhanwala, Tehsil and District
Faridkot, Punjab.
......Respondent- Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
4.5.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri G.S. Simble, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Nirmal Singh Sadhanwalia, under Section First Appeal No.1076 of 2010. 2 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and inconvenience suffered by him and Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses. Further direction was issued to the opposite parties to pay that amount of Rs.32,000/- within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order and failing that they were directed to pay interest on that amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization.
2. As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant applied for a new passport through Sukhmani Suvidha Centre, Faridkot, vide File No.CHD-Z-03257407, Group-Z. He duly filled up all the columns of relevant Form No.21401 and no column was left blank nor he made any misstatement therein. He attached all the relevant documents, along with the demand draft of Rs.1000/-, with the form. The District Police gave a wrong report regarding the pendency of criminal complaint against him, though no such criminal case was pending against him at that time. He was asked to submit the copy of the judgment of the concerned Court by which he had been acquitted and accordingly, he submitted copy of that judgment dated 7.7.2006. Even after the submission of that copy of judgment, opposite party no.1 again demanded that judgment, vide letter dated 13.2.2009. He personally went to the office of that opposite party and requested for the issuance of the passport but it unnecessarily indulged in inter-departmental correspondence with the intention to harass him. He was being invited by several non-Government First Appeal No.1076 of 2010. 3 organizations in America and Canada to participate in cultural programmes to be telecasted in India, as he was doing audio-video media production and was running a number of programmes at Doordarshan. In the absence of the passport he could not apply for the visa. The act of opposite party No.1 in not issuing passport amounts to deficiency in service on its part, on account of which, he suffered mental harassment and failed to go abroad to attend cultural programmes which resulted in loss of income of lacs of rupees. On account of that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. He prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite parties.
3. Written reply in the form of affidavit was filed by opposite party No.1. He averred therein that case of the complainant for the issuance of passport is pending for want of passport verification report from SSP, Faridkot. In the initial report sent by that SSP, vide letter dated 3.11.2007, the reply was given as 'Yes' in column No.6; which itself shows that a warrant/summon for the appearance or a warrant for the arrest of the complainant had been issued by the Court. After the receipt of the certified copies of the acquittal orders from the complainant, the matter was again taken up with the said SSP and a clear police verification report was sent but it did not bear the rubber stamp of the signing authority; which was mandatory. The matter was again taken up with the SSP, Faridkot but no report was received in spite of sending various reminders. After the receipt of the notice from the District Forum, the case was re- First Appeal No.1076 of 2010. 4 examined and it was decided to issue the passport on the basis of the second police verification report even if there was no rubber stamp of the signing authority. He also averred that the passport is not a commercial service and the issuance thereof is based upon legal requirements under the domestic and international law. This service cannot be treated at par with the 'consumer service'. He was to ensure that the considerations involving the law and order, National security, sovereignty and integrity of India, friendly relations of India with other countries and similar factors are duly taken care of. Time is being taken to fulfil the necessary formalities and no time limit has been fixed either by the Passport Act, 1967 or otherwise for the issuance of a passport. As per Section 17 of the said Act, the passport and other travel documents issued under the Passport Act are to remain the property of the Central Government and, as such, no citizen has absolute right to acquire and hold a passport. He also averred therein that the passport has already been granted and is being despatched to the complainant by speed post.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. The arguments were advanced by the counsel for the parties on 19.11.2013. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted First Appeal No.1076 of 2010. 5 that the act of issuing of passport is the sovereign act of the State and for the non-issuance thereof, no complaint is maintainable under the Act. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Commission dated 7.5.2013 passed in First Appeal No.226 of 2010 (Regional Passport Officer and another v. Tarwinderjit Singh). Faced with that situation, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that some time be granted to him to cite some judgments to the contrary. Thereafter the appeal was adjourned to 28.11.2013. Thereafter, he conceded that he has not been able to find any judgment to the contrary.
7. Tarwinderjit Singh's case (supra) was regarding the renewal of the passport, which according to the complainant, had not been renewed by the passport authorities within reasonable time, as a result of which he was deprived to attend the marriage ceremony of his cousin, which was to take place in Malaysia. A question was raised by the passport authorities that the complainant cannot be said to be a 'consumer' under the Act and the dispute raised was not a 'consumer dispute' and, as such, the complaint was not entertainable by the District Forum. By relying upon the judgment dated 13.3.1996 of the Hon'ble National Commission rendered in Original Petition No.78 of 1995 (Ved Prakash v. Union of India) and III (2006) CPJ 406 (Regional Passport Officer v. Santosh Chauhan), it was held by this Commission that a person either applying for the issuance of a passport or renewal thereof to the Passport Officer, does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' as contained in the Act and, therefore, the District Forum could not have First Appeal No.1076 of 2010. 6 entertained and decided the complaint. The ratio of the judgment fully applies to the facts of the present case and in view of that judgment, it is to be held that the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' as contained in the Act and the complaint could not have been entertained and decided by the District Forum.
8. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
9. The sum of Rs.16,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellants/opposite parties by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
10. The arguments in this case were heard on 28.11.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)
December 02 , 2013 MEMBER
Bansal