State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Regional Passport Officer, vs Abdul Razak, Kohadka on 30 April, 2014
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/12/269 (Arisen out of Order Dated 09/12/2011 in Case No. CC/11/118 of District Kasaragod) 1. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,KOZHIKKODE KOZHIKKODE KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. ABDUL RAZAK PARERI HOUSE,PAIVALIKE KASARAGOD KERALA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NUMBER NO.269/12
JUDGMENT DATED : 30.04.2014
(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.118/2011 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod order dated: 09.12.2011)
PRESENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Regional Passport Officer,
Kozhikode - 673 006
APPELLANT
(By Adv.N.Mohanan Pillai, TVPM
Vs.
Abdul Razak, Kohadka,
S./o.P.K.Ahammed, RESPONDENT
Pareri House,
Paivalike,Kasaragod
Pin - 671 348
(By Adv.M.Abdul Khadar,Kasaragod
JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.118/2011 in the CDRF, Kasaragod. The sole complainant is the respondent. The complainant was working in UAE as domestic cook and was earning monthly salary of 1500 UAE Dirhams. He came to India on 21.09.2010 with the intension to stay here for five months and his visa was valid up to 21.06.2011. For renewing the visa his passport was required to be in printed format as per the Law in UAE. But the entries in his passport was written and he wanted to convert it into printed format. Hence he decided to renew the passport while in India. It is alleged in the complaint that he approached the opposite party Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode, who assured him that the renewed passport in printed format would be issued within 45 days if there was no other disqualification for him in obtaining passport. Accordingly on 13.12.2010 he surrendered the passport and paid Rs.1000/- as passport renewal fees. The police verification was over within few days. The complainant contacted opposite party several times. But he failed to issue renewed passport. In the meanwhile, the period of visa expired. Consequent to that the complainant lost his employment and service benefits. It is further alleged that had the appellant not assured that the renewed passport would be issued within 44 days, the complainant would not have entrusted his passport for renewal and he would have got it renewed from UAE after returning to Gulf. Therefore, the failure to issue renewed passport on time is deficiency in service.
2. The opposite party contended before the Forum that the Government of India is a necessary party to the proceedings. They received application for passport from the complainant on 13.12.2010 under the ordinary scheme along with fee of Rs.1000/- and old passport issued from Abudhabi. On receipt of application the old passport was cancelled on 01.02.2011. They received police verification report and after processing the matter in the usual course, new passport was issued on 12.04.2011. There was no intention to delay issue of passport on the part of the opposite party. No assurance was given that renewed passport would be issued in 45 days. There is no rule compelling them to process and issue passport within 45 days. The issuance of passport to a citizen depends on various factors including availability of staff etc. Normally 800 applications are being received every day and equal number of passports is being issued. The complainant could have availed tatkal facility if he wanted the passport earlier. The issuance and non issuance of passport is a statutory duty and hence can not be challenged before a Consumer Court. The State is not providing any service to any person for consideration. Passport is issued in exercise of sovereign power in the public interest. It is not meant to serve any individual willing to pay. It is meant to further the policy of government in the matters of security immigration etc and that is why Section 17 of the Passport Act makes it clear that at all time the passport remains the exclusive property of the Central Government. Hence the issue of passport is the official duty of the Passport Officer and does not fall within the category of public utility service. The complaint is devoid of merit.
3. Before the District Consumer Forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. One witness was examined on behalf of the opposite party. Exts.B1 & B2 were marked on their side. As per the impugned order the Consumer Forum rejected the contentions of the opposite party and allowed compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. The Consumer Forum further directed the first opposite party to take urgent steps to upgrade and develop their infrastructure facility to issue passport to all the eligible applicants within 30-35 days from the date of getting police verification report as published by them in their website. The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode who was the opposite party is challenging the correctness of the order in this appeal.
4. It may be mentioned at the outset that the last mentioned direction to upgrade infrastructure facility etc is something which Consumer Courts are not empowered to issue as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It is doubtful whether even the High Courts and the Supreme Court would have issued such orders in exercise of their prerogative powers under Articles 226 & 32 of the Constitution of India. It is time for Consumer Courts to acknowledge that they are not above the constitution and the laws.
5. Coming to the question whether failure to issue passport within a time frame is something amenable to the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums, it is pertinent to notice that Consumer Forum itself is of the view that issuance or non issuance of passport is not a consumer dispute for the appellant was not bound to issue passport to every applicant and it is a matter of policy. The Consumer Forum apparently relied on the observations of the National Commission in the case of Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore Vs Anuradha, Thadippurath Gopinath to point out that issue of passport is not a sovereign function but a statutory function. But failed to notice that in that case the Regional Passport Officer issued an invalid passport which was not signed by the Passport Officer. In the present case the passport issued was definitely valid. But according to the complainant it was not issued before the expiry of his visa. But it is pertinent to notice that he returned to India on 21.09.2010 but applied for renewed passport only on 13.12.2010. The passport was actually issued on 12.04.2011. He never availed the facility to get passport issued urgently. That apart even though issue of passport is a statutory function definitely it is the instrument through which the sovereign protective arm of the Union of India is extended to its citizens living abroad. This is a responsible function and can not be routinely extended to every citizen. It is not sufficient that local police verification was made. In the present case, he returned from abroad. It is for the Union of India to ensure that he did not leave the foreign country after committing crime and he did not want to escape from India to avoid extradition or any other legal process. Such and several other considerations arise even in issuing renewed passport and an applicant can not insist the passport officer to issue renewed passport or passport within a prescribed time frame. So no deficiency in service is involved in such matters. A statutory function is not within the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the District Consumer Forum erred in allowing the complaint. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.No.118/2011 dated 09.12.2011 is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their costs in this appeal.
Be/ KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NUMBER NO.269/12 JUDGMENT DATED : 30.04.2014 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.118/2011 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod order dated: 09.12.2011) PRESENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode - 673 006 APPELLANT (By Adv.N.Mohanan Pillai, TVPM Vs. Abdul Razak, Kohadka, S./o.P.K.Ahammed, RESPONDENT Pareri House, Paivalike,Kasaragod Pin - 671 348 (By Adv.M.Abdul Khadar,Kasaragod JUDGMENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.118/2011 in the CDRF, Kasaragod. The sole complainant is the respondent. The complainant was working in UAE as domestic cook and was earning monthly salary of 1500 UAE Dirhams. He came to India on 21.09.2010 with the intension to stay here for five months and his visa was valid up to 21.06.2011. For renewing the visa his passport was required to be in printed format as per the Law in UAE. But the entries in his passport was written and he wanted to convert it into printed format. Hence he decided to renew the passport while in India. It is alleged in the complaint that he approached the opposite party Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode, who assured him that the renewed passport in printed format would be issued within 45 days if there was no other disqualification for him in obtaining passport. Accordingly on 13.12.2010 he surrendered the passport and paid Rs.1000/- as passport renewal fees. The police verification was over within few days. The complainant contacted opposite party several times. But he failed to issue renewed passport. In the meanwhile, the period of visa expired. Consequent to that the complainant lost his employment and service benefits. It is further alleged that had the appellant not assured that the renewed passport would be issued within 44 days, the complainant would not have entrusted his passport for renewal and he would have got it renewed from UAE after returning to Gulf. Therefore, the failure to issue renewed passport on time is deficiency in service.
2. The opposite party contended before the Forum that the Government of India is a necessary party to the proceedings. They received application for passport from the complainant on 13.12.2010 under the ordinary scheme along with fee of Rs.1000/- and old passport issued from Abudhabi. On receipt of application the old passport was cancelled on 01.02.2011. They received police verification report and after processing the matter in the usual course, new passport was issued on 12.04.2011. There was no intention to delay issue of passport on the part of the opposite party. No assurance was given that renewed passport would be issued in 45 days. There is no rule compelling them to process and issue passport within 45 days. The issuance of passport to a citizen depends on various factors including availability of staff etc. Normally 800 applications are being received every day and equal number of passports is being issued. The complainant could have availed tatkal facility if he wanted the passport earlier. The issuance and non issuance of passport is a statutory duty and hence can not be challenged before a Consumer Court. The State is not providing any service to any person for consideration. Passport is issued in exercise of sovereign power in the public interest. It is not meant to serve any individual willing to pay. It is meant to further the policy of government in the matters of security immigration etc and that is why Section 17 of the Passport Act makes it clear that at all time the passport remains the exclusive property of the Central Government. Hence the issue of passport is the official duty of the Passport Officer and does not fall within the category of public utility service. The complaint is devoid of merit.
3. Before the District Consumer Forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. One witness was examined on behalf of the opposite party. Exts.B1 & B2 were marked on their side. As per the impugned order the Consumer Forum rejected the contentions of the opposite party and allowed compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. The Consumer Forum further directed the first opposite party to take urgent steps to upgrade and develop their infrastructure facility to issue passport to all the eligible applicants within 30-35 days from the date of getting police verification report as published by them in their website. The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode who was the opposite party is challenging the correctness of the order in this appeal.
4. It may be mentioned at the outset that the last mentioned direction to upgrade infrastructure facility etc is something which Consumer Courts are not empowered to issue as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It is doubtful whether even the High Courts and the Supreme Court would have issued such orders in exercise of their prerogative powers under Articles 226 & 32 of the Constitution of India. It is time for Consumer Courts to acknowledge that they are not above the constitution and the laws.
5. Coming to the question whether failure to issue passport within a time frame is something amenable to the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums, it is pertinent to notice that Consumer Forum itself is of the view that issuance or non issuance of passport is not a consumer dispute for the appellant was not bound to issue passport to every applicant and it is a matter of policy. The Consumer Forum apparently relied on the observations of the National Commission in the case of Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore Vs Anuradha, Thadippurath Gopinath to point out that issue of passport is not a sovereign function but a statutory function. But failed to notice that in that case the Regional Passport Officer issued an invalid passport which was not signed by the Passport Officer. In the present case the passport issued was definitely valid. But according to the complainant it was not issued before the expiry of his visa. But it is pertinent to notice that he returned to India on 21.09.2010 but applied for renewed passport only on 13.12.2010. The passport was actually issued on 12.04.2011. He never availed the facility to get passport issued urgently. That apart even though issue of passport is a statutory function definitely it is the instrument through which the sovereign protective arm of the Union of India is extended to its citizens living abroad. This is a responsible function and can not be routinely extended to every citizen. It is not sufficient that local police verification was made. In the present case, he returned from abroad. It is for the Union of India to ensure that he did not leave the foreign country after committing crime and he did not want to escape from India to avoid extradition or any other legal process. Such and several other considerations arise even in issuing renewed passport and an applicant can not insist the passport officer to issue renewed passport or passport within a prescribed time frame. So no deficiency in service is involved in such matters. A statutory function is not within the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the District Consumer Forum erred in allowing the complaint. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.No.118/2011 dated 09.12.2011 is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their costs in this appeal.
Be/ KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NUMBER NO.269/12 JUDGMENT DATED : 30.04.2014 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.118/2011 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod order dated: 09.12.2011) PRESENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode - 673 006 APPELLANT (By Adv.N.Mohanan Pillai, TVPM Vs. Abdul Razak, Kohadka, S./o.P.K.Ahammed, RESPONDENT Pareri House, Paivalike,Kasaragod Pin - 671 348 (By Adv.M.Abdul Khadar,Kasaragod JUDGMENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.118/2011 in the CDRF, Kasaragod. The sole complainant is the respondent. The complainant was working in UAE as domestic cook and was earning monthly salary of 1500 UAE Dirhams. He came to India on 21.09.2010 with the intension to stay here for five months and his visa was valid up to 21.06.2011. For renewing the visa his passport was required to be in printed format as per the Law in UAE. But the entries in his passport was written and he wanted to convert it into printed format. Hence he decided to renew the passport while in India. It is alleged in the complaint that he approached the opposite party Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode, who assured him that the renewed passport in printed format would be issued within 45 days if there was no other disqualification for him in obtaining passport. Accordingly on 13.12.2010 he surrendered the passport and paid Rs.1000/- as passport renewal fees. The police verification was over within few days. The complainant contacted opposite party several times. But he failed to issue renewed passport. In the meanwhile, the period of visa expired. Consequent to that the complainant lost his employment and service benefits. It is further alleged that had the appellant not assured that the renewed passport would be issued within 44 days, the complainant would not have entrusted his passport for renewal and he would have got it renewed from UAE after returning to Gulf. Therefore, the failure to issue renewed passport on time is deficiency in service.
2. The opposite party contended before the Forum that the Government of India is a necessary party to the proceedings. They received application for passport from the complainant on 13.12.2010 under the ordinary scheme along with fee of Rs.1000/- and old passport issued from Abudhabi. On receipt of application the old passport was cancelled on 01.02.2011. They received police verification report and after processing the matter in the usual course, new passport was issued on 12.04.2011. There was no intention to delay issue of passport on the part of the opposite party. No assurance was given that renewed passport would be issued in 45 days. There is no rule compelling them to process and issue passport within 45 days. The issuance of passport to a citizen depends on various factors including availability of staff etc. Normally 800 applications are being received every day and equal number of passports is being issued. The complainant could have availed tatkal facility if he wanted the passport earlier. The issuance and non issuance of passport is a statutory duty and hence can not be challenged before a Consumer Court. The State is not providing any service to any person for consideration. Passport is issued in exercise of sovereign power in the public interest. It is not meant to serve any individual willing to pay. It is meant to further the policy of government in the matters of security immigration etc and that is why Section 17 of the Passport Act makes it clear that at all time the passport remains the exclusive property of the Central Government. Hence the issue of passport is the official duty of the Passport Officer and does not fall within the category of public utility service. The complaint is devoid of merit.
3. Before the District Consumer Forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. One witness was examined on behalf of the opposite party. Exts.B1 & B2 were marked on their side. As per the impugned order the Consumer Forum rejected the contentions of the opposite party and allowed compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. The Consumer Forum further directed the first opposite party to take urgent steps to upgrade and develop their infrastructure facility to issue passport to all the eligible applicants within 30-35 days from the date of getting police verification report as published by them in their website. The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode who was the opposite party is challenging the correctness of the order in this appeal.
4. It may be mentioned at the outset that the last mentioned direction to upgrade infrastructure facility etc is something which Consumer Courts are not empowered to issue as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It is doubtful whether even the High Courts and the Supreme Court would have issued such orders in exercise of their prerogative powers under Articles 226 & 32 of the Constitution of India. It is time for Consumer Courts to acknowledge that they are not above the constitution and the laws.
5. Coming to the question whether failure to issue passport within a time frame is something amenable to the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums, it is pertinent to notice that Consumer Forum itself is of the view that issuance or non issuance of passport is not a consumer dispute for the appellant was not bound to issue passport to every applicant and it is a matter of policy. The Consumer Forum apparently relied on the observations of the National Commission in the case of Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore Vs Anuradha, Thadippurath Gopinath to point out that issue of passport is not a sovereign function but a statutory function. But failed to notice that in that case the Regional Passport Officer issued an invalid passport which was not signed by the Passport Officer. In the present case the passport issued was definitely valid. But according to the complainant it was not issued before the expiry of his visa. But it is pertinent to notice that he returned to India on 21.09.2010 but applied for renewed passport only on 13.12.2010. The passport was actually issued on 12.04.2011. He never availed the facility to get passport issued urgently. That apart even though issue of passport is a statutory function definitely it is the instrument through which the sovereign protective arm of the Union of India is extended to its citizens living abroad. This is a responsible function and can not be routinely extended to every citizen. It is not sufficient that local police verification was made. In the present case, he returned from abroad. It is for the Union of India to ensure that he did not leave the foreign country after committing crime and he did not want to escape from India to avoid extradition or any other legal process. Such and several other considerations arise even in issuing renewed passport and an applicant can not insist the passport officer to issue renewed passport or passport within a prescribed time frame. So no deficiency in service is involved in such matters. A statutory function is not within the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the District Consumer Forum erred in allowing the complaint. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.No.118/2011 dated 09.12.2011 is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their costs in this appeal.
Be/ KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NUMBER NO.269/12 JUDGMENT DATED : 30.04.2014 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.118/2011 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod order dated: 09.12.2011) PRESENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode - 673 006 APPELLANT (By Adv.N.Mohanan Pillai, TVPM Vs. Abdul Razak, Kohadka, S./o.P.K.Ahammed, RESPONDENT Pareri House, Paivalike,Kasaragod Pin - 671 348 (By Adv.M.Abdul Khadar,Kasaragod JUDGMENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.118/2011 in the CDRF, Kasaragod. The sole complainant is the respondent. The complainant was working in UAE as domestic cook and was earning monthly salary of 1500 UAE Dirhams. He came to India on 21.09.2010 with the intension to stay here for five months and his visa was valid up to 21.06.2011. For renewing the visa his passport was required to be in printed format as per the Law in UAE. But the entries in his passport was written and he wanted to convert it into printed format. Hence he decided to renew the passport while in India. It is alleged in the complaint that he approached the opposite party Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode, who assured him that the renewed passport in printed format would be issued within 45 days if there was no other disqualification for him in obtaining passport. Accordingly on 13.12.2010 he surrendered the passport and paid Rs.1000/- as passport renewal fees. The police verification was over within few days. The complainant contacted opposite party several times. But he failed to issue renewed passport. In the meanwhile, the period of visa expired. Consequent to that the complainant lost his employment and service benefits. It is further alleged that had the appellant not assured that the renewed passport would be issued within 44 days, the complainant would not have entrusted his passport for renewal and he would have got it renewed from UAE after returning to Gulf. Therefore, the failure to issue renewed passport on time is deficiency in service.
2. The opposite party contended before the Forum that the Government of India is a necessary party to the proceedings. They received application for passport from the complainant on 13.12.2010 under the ordinary scheme along with fee of Rs.1000/- and old passport issued from Abudhabi. On receipt of application the old passport was cancelled on 01.02.2011. They received police verification report and after processing the matter in the usual course, new passport was issued on 12.04.2011. There was no intention to delay issue of passport on the part of the opposite party. No assurance was given that renewed passport would be issued in 45 days. There is no rule compelling them to process and issue passport within 45 days. The issuance of passport to a citizen depends on various factors including availability of staff etc. Normally 800 applications are being received every day and equal number of passports is being issued. The complainant could have availed tatkal facility if he wanted the passport earlier. The issuance and non issuance of passport is a statutory duty and hence can not be challenged before a Consumer Court. The State is not providing any service to any person for consideration. Passport is issued in exercise of sovereign power in the public interest. It is not meant to serve any individual willing to pay. It is meant to further the policy of government in the matters of security immigration etc and that is why Section 17 of the Passport Act makes it clear that at all time the passport remains the exclusive property of the Central Government. Hence the issue of passport is the official duty of the Passport Officer and does not fall within the category of public utility service. The complaint is devoid of merit.
3. Before the District Consumer Forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. One witness was examined on behalf of the opposite party. Exts.B1 & B2 were marked on their side. As per the impugned order the Consumer Forum rejected the contentions of the opposite party and allowed compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. The Consumer Forum further directed the first opposite party to take urgent steps to upgrade and develop their infrastructure facility to issue passport to all the eligible applicants within 30-35 days from the date of getting police verification report as published by them in their website. The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode who was the opposite party is challenging the correctness of the order in this appeal.
4. It may be mentioned at the outset that the last mentioned direction to upgrade infrastructure facility etc is something which Consumer Courts are not empowered to issue as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It is doubtful whether even the High Courts and the Supreme Court would have issued such orders in exercise of their prerogative powers under Articles 226 & 32 of the Constitution of India. It is time for Consumer Courts to acknowledge that they are not above the constitution and the laws.
5. Coming to the question whether failure to issue passport within a time frame is something amenable to the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums, it is pertinent to notice that Consumer Forum itself is of the view that issuance or non issuance of passport is not a consumer dispute for the appellant was not bound to issue passport to every applicant and it is a matter of policy. The Consumer Forum apparently relied on the observations of the National Commission in the case of Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore Vs Anuradha, Thadippurath Gopinath to point out that issue of passport is not a sovereign function but a statutory function. But failed to notice that in that case the Regional Passport Officer issued an invalid passport which was not signed by the Passport Officer. In the present case the passport issued was definitely valid. But according to the complainant it was not issued before the expiry of his visa. But it is pertinent to notice that he returned to India on 21.09.2010 but applied for renewed passport only on 13.12.2010. The passport was actually issued on 12.04.2011. He never availed the facility to get passport issued urgently. That apart even though issue of passport is a statutory function definitely it is the instrument through which the sovereign protective arm of the Union of India is extended to its citizens living abroad. This is a responsible function and can not be routinely extended to every citizen. It is not sufficient that local police verification was made. In the present case, he returned from abroad. It is for the Union of India to ensure that he did not leave the foreign country after committing crime and he did not want to escape from India to avoid extradition or any other legal process. Such and several other considerations arise even in issuing renewed passport and an applicant can not insist the passport officer to issue renewed passport or passport within a prescribed time frame. So no deficiency in service is involved in such matters. A statutory function is not within the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the District Consumer Forum erred in allowing the complaint. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.No.118/2011 dated 09.12.2011 is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their costs in this appeal.
Be/ KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NUMBER NO.269/12 JUDGMENT DATED : 30.04.2014 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.118/2011 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod order dated: 09.12.2011) PRESENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode - 673 006 APPELLANT (By Adv.N.Mohanan Pillai, TVPM Vs. Abdul Razak, Kohadka, S./o.P.K.Ahammed, RESPONDENT Pareri House, Paivalike,Kasaragod Pin - 671 348 (By Adv.M.Abdul Khadar,Kasaragod JUDGMENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.118/2011 in the CDRF, Kasaragod. The sole complainant is the respondent. The complainant was working in UAE as domestic cook and was earning monthly salary of 1500 UAE Dirhams. He came to India on 21.09.2010 with the intension to stay here for five months and his visa was valid up to 21.06.2011. For renewing the visa his passport was required to be in printed format as per the Law in UAE. But the entries in his passport was written and he wanted to convert it into printed format. Hence he decided to renew the passport while in India. It is alleged in the complaint that he approached the opposite party Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode, who assured him that the renewed passport in printed format would be issued within 45 days if there was no other disqualification for him in obtaining passport. Accordingly on 13.12.2010 he surrendered the passport and paid Rs.1000/- as passport renewal fees. The police verification was over within few days. The complainant contacted opposite party several times. But he failed to issue renewed passport. In the meanwhile, the period of visa expired. Consequent to that the complainant lost his employment and service benefits. It is further alleged that had the appellant not assured that the renewed passport would be issued within 44 days, the complainant would not have entrusted his passport for renewal and he would have got it renewed from UAE after returning to Gulf. Therefore, the failure to issue renewed passport on time is deficiency in service.
2. The opposite party contended before the Forum that the Government of India is a necessary party to the proceedings. They received application for passport from the complainant on 13.12.2010 under the ordinary scheme along with fee of Rs.1000/- and old passport issued from Abudhabi. On receipt of application the old passport was cancelled on 01.02.2011. They received police verification report and after processing the matter in the usual course, new passport was issued on 12.04.2011. There was no intention to delay issue of passport on the part of the opposite party. No assurance was given that renewed passport would be issued in 45 days. There is no rule compelling them to process and issue passport within 45 days. The issuance of passport to a citizen depends on various factors including availability of staff etc. Normally 800 applications are being received every day and equal number of passports is being issued. The complainant could have availed tatkal facility if he wanted the passport earlier. The issuance and non issuance of passport is a statutory duty and hence can not be challenged before a Consumer Court. The State is not providing any service to any person for consideration. Passport is issued in exercise of sovereign power in the public interest. It is not meant to serve any individual willing to pay. It is meant to further the policy of government in the matters of security immigration etc and that is why Section 17 of the Passport Act makes it clear that at all time the passport remains the exclusive property of the Central Government. Hence the issue of passport is the official duty of the Passport Officer and does not fall within the category of public utility service. The complaint is devoid of merit.
3. Before the District Consumer Forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. One witness was examined on behalf of the opposite party. Exts.B1 & B2 were marked on their side. As per the impugned order the Consumer Forum rejected the contentions of the opposite party and allowed compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. The Consumer Forum further directed the first opposite party to take urgent steps to upgrade and develop their infrastructure facility to issue passport to all the eligible applicants within 30-35 days from the date of getting police verification report as published by them in their website. The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode who was the opposite party is challenging the correctness of the order in this appeal.
4. It may be mentioned at the outset that the last mentioned direction to upgrade infrastructure facility etc is something which Consumer Courts are not empowered to issue as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It is doubtful whether even the High Courts and the Supreme Court would have issued such orders in exercise of their prerogative powers under Articles 226 & 32 of the Constitution of India. It is time for Consumer Courts to acknowledge that they are not above the constitution and the laws.
5. Coming to the question whether failure to issue passport within a time frame is something amenable to the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums, it is pertinent to notice that Consumer Forum itself is of the view that issuance or non issuance of passport is not a consumer dispute for the appellant was not bound to issue passport to every applicant and it is a matter of policy. The Consumer Forum apparently relied on the observations of the National Commission in the case of Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore Vs Anuradha, Thadippurath Gopinath to point out that issue of passport is not a sovereign function but a statutory function. But failed to notice that in that case the Regional Passport Officer issued an invalid passport which was not signed by the Passport Officer. In the present case the passport issued was definitely valid. But according to the complainant it was not issued before the expiry of his visa. But it is pertinent to notice that he returned to India on 21.09.2010 but applied for renewed passport only on 13.12.2010. The passport was actually issued on 12.04.2011. He never availed the facility to get passport issued urgently. That apart even though issue of passport is a statutory function definitely it is the instrument through which the sovereign protective arm of the Union of India is extended to its citizens living abroad. This is a responsible function and can not be routinely extended to every citizen. It is not sufficient that local police verification was made. In the present case, he returned from abroad. It is for the Union of India to ensure that he did not leave the foreign country after committing crime and he did not want to escape from India to avoid extradition or any other legal process. Such and several other considerations arise even in issuing renewed passport and an applicant can not insist the passport officer to issue renewed passport or passport within a prescribed time frame. So no deficiency in service is involved in such matters. A statutory function is not within the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the District Consumer Forum erred in allowing the complaint. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.No.118/2011 dated 09.12.2011 is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their costs in this appeal.
Be/ KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NUMBER NO.269/12 JUDGMENT DATED : 30.04.2014 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.118/2011 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod order dated: 09.12.2011) PRESENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode - 673 006 APPELLANT (By Adv.N.Mohanan Pillai, TVPM Vs. Abdul Razak, Kohadka, S./o.P.K.Ahammed, RESPONDENT Pareri House, Paivalike,Kasaragod Pin - 671 348 (By Adv.M.Abdul Khadar,Kasaragod JUDGMENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.118/2011 in the CDRF, Kasaragod. The sole complainant is the respondent. The complainant was working in UAE as domestic cook and was earning monthly salary of 1500 UAE Dirhams. He came to India on 21.09.2010 with the intension to stay here for five months and his visa was valid up to 21.06.2011. For renewing the visa his passport was required to be in printed format as per the Law in UAE. But the entries in his passport was written and he wanted to convert it into printed format. Hence he decided to renew the passport while in India. It is alleged in the complaint that he approached the opposite party Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode, who assured him that the renewed passport in printed format would be issued within 45 days if there was no other disqualification for him in obtaining passport. Accordingly on 13.12.2010 he surrendered the passport and paid Rs.1000/- as passport renewal fees. The police verification was over within few days. The complainant contacted opposite party several times. But he failed to issue renewed passport. In the meanwhile, the period of visa expired. Consequent to that the complainant lost his employment and service benefits. It is further alleged that had the appellant not assured that the renewed passport would be issued within 44 days, the complainant would not have entrusted his passport for renewal and he would have got it renewed from UAE after returning to Gulf. Therefore, the failure to issue renewed passport on time is deficiency in service.
2. The opposite party contended before the Forum that the Government of India is a necessary party to the proceedings. They received application for passport from the complainant on 13.12.2010 under the ordinary scheme along with fee of Rs.1000/- and old passport issued from Abudhabi. On receipt of application the old passport was cancelled on 01.02.2011. They received police verification report and after processing the matter in the usual course, new passport was issued on 12.04.2011. There was no intention to delay issue of passport on the part of the opposite party. No assurance was given that renewed passport would be issued in 45 days. There is no rule compelling them to process and issue passport within 45 days. The issuance of passport to a citizen depends on various factors including availability of staff etc. Normally 800 applications are being received every day and equal number of passports is being issued. The complainant could have availed tatkal facility if he wanted the passport earlier. The issuance and non issuance of passport is a statutory duty and hence can not be challenged before a Consumer Court. The State is not providing any service to any person for consideration. Passport is issued in exercise of sovereign power in the public interest. It is not meant to serve any individual willing to pay. It is meant to further the policy of government in the matters of security immigration etc and that is why Section 17 of the Passport Act makes it clear that at all time the passport remains the exclusive property of the Central Government. Hence the issue of passport is the official duty of the Passport Officer and does not fall within the category of public utility service. The complaint is devoid of merit.
3. Before the District Consumer Forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. One witness was examined on behalf of the opposite party. Exts.B1 & B2 were marked on their side. As per the impugned order the Consumer Forum rejected the contentions of the opposite party and allowed compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. The Consumer Forum further directed the first opposite party to take urgent steps to upgrade and develop their infrastructure facility to issue passport to all the eligible applicants within 30-35 days from the date of getting police verification report as published by them in their website. The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode who was the opposite party is challenging the correctness of the order in this appeal.
4. It may be mentioned at the outset that the last mentioned direction to upgrade infrastructure facility etc is something which Consumer Courts are not empowered to issue as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It is doubtful whether even the High Courts and the Supreme Court would have issued such orders in exercise of their prerogative powers under Articles 226 & 32 of the Constitution of India. It is time for Consumer Courts to acknowledge that they are not above the constitution and the laws.
5. Coming to the question whether failure to issue passport within a time frame is something amenable to the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums, it is pertinent to notice that Consumer Forum itself is of the view that issuance or non issuance of passport is not a consumer dispute for the appellant was not bound to issue passport to every applicant and it is a matter of policy. The Consumer Forum apparently relied on the observations of the National Commission in the case of Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore Vs Anuradha, Thadippurath Gopinath to point out that issue of passport is not a sovereign function but a statutory function. But failed to notice that in that case the Regional Passport Officer issued an invalid passport which was not signed by the Passport Officer. In the present case the passport issued was definitely valid. But according to the complainant it was not issued before the expiry of his visa. But it is pertinent to notice that he returned to India on 21.09.2010 but applied for renewed passport only on 13.12.2010. The passport was actually issued on 12.04.2011. He never availed the facility to get passport issued urgently. That apart even though issue of passport is a statutory function definitely it is the instrument through which the sovereign protective arm of the Union of India is extended to its citizens living abroad. This is a responsible function and can not be routinely extended to every citizen. It is not sufficient that local police verification was made. In the present case, he returned from abroad. It is for the Union of India to ensure that he did not leave the foreign country after committing crime and he did not want to escape from India to avoid extradition or any other legal process. Such and several other considerations arise even in issuing renewed passport and an applicant can not insist the passport officer to issue renewed passport or passport within a prescribed time frame. So no deficiency in service is involved in such matters. A statutory function is not within the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the District Consumer Forum erred in allowing the complaint. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.No.118/2011 dated 09.12.2011 is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their costs in this appeal.
Be/ [HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR] PRESIDING MEMBER