State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Regional Passport Authority vs Jaswinder Kaur on 23 July, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.471 of 2023
Date of Institution:19.07.2023
Date of decision : 23.07.2024
1. The Regional Passport Authority, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh,
through its Regional Passport Officer.
2. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi
through its Secretary.
3. Director/Office Incharge, Regional Passport Office, near Main Bus
Stand Road, near Preet Palace, Ludhiana.
........Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Jaswinder Kaur, wife of Sh.Gurmail Singh, resident of Bath Patti,
Village Aspal Kalan, Sub Tehsil Dhanaula, District Barnala.
.......Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal U/S 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 12.10.2022 passed by
the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Barnala.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No FA No.471 of 2023 2 Present :-
For the appellants : Sh.Indresh Goel, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER M.A.No.966 of 2023 (Delay) There is a delay of 234 days in filing of the present Appeal, which is supported by an affidavit.
Notice of the Application as well as the Appeal was issued to the Respondent.
For the reasons stated in the Application, the delay of 234 days in filing the Appeal is condoned subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.
Main Case
2. The Appellants/Opposite parties have approached this Commission by way of filing the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short 'The Act') for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barnala (in short 'the District Commission'), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant-Jaswinder Kaur had been allowed.
3. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
4. The Respondent/Complainant filed Complaint before the District Commission with the grievance that her date of birth in her passport was required to be corrected from 01.01.1982 to FA No.471 of 2023 3 25.03.2071. Said Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide order dated 12.10.2022 by issuing directions to the OPs to issue/release new Passport to the Complainant after following the rules and regulations. The OPs were further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant and Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses. The compliance of the order was to be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
5. Said order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the District Commission is subject matter of challenge in the present Appeal filed by the Appellants/OPs i.e. "The Regional Passport Authority, Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Jaswinder Kaur".
6. At the very outset, Sh.Indresh Goel, Advocate learned Counsel for the Appellants/OPs has submitted that in view of the judgment passed by this Commission in case i.e. FA No.175 of 2019 titled as "The Regional Passport Officer & Anr. Vs. Paramjit Kaur Dhaliwal", decided on 08.11.2019, the present Complaint filed by the Complainant before the District Commission was not maintainable. The Said issue of maintainability had also been explicitly dealt in the aforesaid order passed by this Commission. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
The case of complainant is that her date of birth was wrongly recorded in the passport as "01.01.1971", whereas her actual date of birth is "01.01.1964". She had applied with the opposite FA No.471 of 2023 4 parties for making correction of her date of birth in the passport, accordingly. However, the opposite parties have not effected correction of date of birth of the complainant, on the ground that in the Passport Application Form Ex.OPs-2, her declaration and affidavit Ex.OPs-3 and Ex.OPs-4, Aadhar Card Ex.OPs-7, Online Appointment Receipt Ex.OPs-8 as well as Police Verification Report Ex.OPs-14, her date of birth has been duly mentioned as '01.01.1971' and not "01.01.1964".
14. The only legal question to be determined in this appeal is, whether the complainant falls under the definition of 'consumer' and whether the duties of the passport office fall under the definition of 'service', as defined in the Act?
15. This issue is no more res integra. The issuance of the passport or making any correction in it by the Central Government or by any authority empowered under the Passport Act is a sovereign act, which has to be performed by the authorities according to the prescribed rules. Every passport application passes through prescribed internal security procedures as well as the same is investigated through security agencies, such as police and CID etc. The Passport Act also provides for refusal/impounding/revocation and appeal procedures under Sections 6, 10 and 11 of the said Act. In the present case, the presence of adverse feature, i.e. mentioning of date of birth of the complainant as "01.01.1971"
in the aforementioned documents, raised suspicion in the minds of opposite parties and they refused to make the correction of date of birth sought by the complainant. The passport is very important document and as per the provisions of the said Act, it is to be issued or any correction is to be made therein by the Passport Officer after satisfying himself about a number of facts. If while verifying all those facts, even a thin line of suspicion appears, the Passport Officer can be said to be justified in refusing to issue the passport or effecting FA No.471 of 2023 5 corrections therein. Moreover, as per Section 17 of that Act, a passport at all times remains the property of the Central Government and, as such, no one can claim it as a matter of right. In these circumstances, the dispute raised by the complainant in the complaint does not constitute a consumer dispute and she does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' as contained in Section 2(1) (d) of the Act.
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Kataria v. Asstt. Regional Passport Office 1998 (1) CCC 201 held that passport is not a commodity , which can be purchased or sold for consideration, but it is only a nature of permission granted by the sovereign to its citizens to go outside the country. It was further held that the function of the Central Government, which is required to be performed under the Passport Act, could not be equated with the definition of 'service' rendered to the consumer as defined in the Act.
17. In another case Nrisingha Muran Chakraborty & Ors. v. State of West Bengal AIR 1977 SC 1174, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that passport, by virtue of its nature and purpose, is a political document for the benefit of its holder, as it recognizes him as citizen of the country and the same is granted to a person in the nature of request to another country for his free passage therein.
18. Hon'ble National Commission held S. Vijaya kumar's (supra) case held as under: "In so far as this Commission is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra. In a catena of decisions rendered by this Commission, it has been held that issuance of a passport is a statutory function and the Passport Officer cannot be held to be a 'Service Provider' and, therefore, the complaint under the Act for delay in issuing the passport would not be maintainable. In this behalf, it would suffice to make reference to a recent order dated 13.03.2015 passed in Revision Petition No. 3785 of FA No.471 of 2023 6 2013 (Passport Officer Vs. Ajay Bansal), wherein referring to the earlier orders passed by this Commission and also the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. B.N. Raman - (2006) 5 SCC 727 and Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha - (2009) 8 SCC 483, a co-ordinate Bench of this Commission has also taken the aforestated view."
19. Further, in Ved Parkash v. Union of India Original Petition No.78 of 1995 decided by the Hon'ble National Commission on 13.3.1996, the complainant alleged delay in the renewal of the passport. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the same does not constitute a 'consumer dispute'; which can be validly entertained and adjudicated by the Commission under the Act.
20. Similarly, in Regional Passport Officer v. Santosh Chauhan III (2006) CPJ 406, there was delay in issuing the passport. After discussing the case law on the subject, it was held by the Haryana State Commission that the complainant had no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to issue passport to him and other reliefs, as he cannot be said to be the 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
21. XXXXXXX
22. XXXXXXX
23. In view of the law laid down in the above noted authorities as well as the facts and circumstances discussed above, it is clear that the service provided by the passport authorities cannot be equated with the meaning of 'service' and the complainant cannot be held to be a 'consumer', as defined in the Act. The District Forum failed to take notice of all these facts, while passing the impugned order.
FA No.471 of 2023 7
24. In view of my above discussion, the appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed, being not maintainable.
7. The same issue was there in FA No.175 of 2019 titled as "The Regional Passport Officer & Anr. Vs. Paramjit Kaur Dhaliwal", (Supra), wherein it was held that the service provided by the passport authorities cannot be equated with the meaning of 'Service' and the Complainant cannot be held to be a 'Consumer' as defined under the Act. However, the District Commission had failed to take notice of all these material facts while passing the impugned order. Moreover, the learned for the Appellants has fairly submitted that Respondent/Complainant is at liberty to move appropriate application before the Appellant Department by annexing all the required documents after completing all the necessary formalities as required. Further, the case of the Respondent/Complainant would be considered and decided within a period of 45 days upon receipt of Application along with required documents.
8. In view of the aforementioned ratio of judgements as cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellants and also the assurance given by him during the course of oral arguments, the order passed by the District Commission is set aside as the Complaint under the CP Act, is not maintainable. However, the Respondent/Complainant is at liberty to approach the Appellant Department to apply for passport/correction as per the requirement and procedure within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of FA No.471 of 2023 8 certified copy of the order. Thereafter, the Appellant Department is directed to consider and decide the Application and take necessary action in accordance with law and procedure within the prescribed period. The Appeal filed by the Appellants is disposed off and the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the District Commission is set aside with the aforesaid liberty to the Respondent/Complainant.
9. The Appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.6,650/- at the time of filing the Appeal. The Registry is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed as cost to condone the delay in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission as mentioned above, out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,650/-. The remaining amount along with interest, if any, accrued on the amount of Rs.6,650/- be remitted to the Appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
10. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER (VISHAV KANT GARG) MEMBER July 23, 2024 (Rupinder 2)