State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Regional Passport Office vs Santokh Singh on 6 July, 2020
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.131 of 2020
Date of institution : 02.03.2020
Date of decision : 06.07.2020
1.Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar, SCO No.110, 2nd-4th floor, Raj Tower, District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Passport Officer.
2. Passport Seva Kendra, Amritsar, 14, Mall Road, Near Custom Chowk, Amritsar, through its Passport Officer.
.......Appellants-Opposite Parties Nos.2 & 1 Versus Santokh Singh, age about 42 years, s/o Jugraj Singh, r/o Village Wara Daraka, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
......Respondent-Complainant First Appeal against the order dated 28.1.2020 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
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 Argued by:-
For the appellants : Shri Indresh Goel, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-opposite parties against the order dated 28.1.2020 passed by District First Appeal No.131 of 2020 2 Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the consumer complaint filed by Santokh Singh, respondent-complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "C.P. Act") was allowed and the appellants-opposite parties were directed to issue passport to the complainant subject to submission of copy of judgment in FIR No.391/02 registered with I.G.I. Airport Police Station, New Delhi to Passport Authorities within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are to the effect that the complainant had a passport bearing No.G8777546 issued by Chandigarh Office having validity for the period from 5.6.2008 to 4.6.2018. In 2002 FIR No.391/02 was registered against the complainant and Patiala House Court of New Delhi imposed fine of ₹50,000/- to him and at that time he was having valid passport bearing No.A4237256, which was issued on 15.12.1997. It was further averred that after the expiry of that passport, the complainant got renewed his passport and new passport bearing No.G8777546 was issued to him valid for the period from 5.6.2008 to 4.6.2018. Now after the expiry of that passport, the complainant applied for re- issuance of passport with opposite party No.2 and his application was registered with File No.AS1072427854818 dated 2.6.2018 but First Appeal No.131 of 2020 3 the opposite parties did not renew his passport and demanded judgment of the said Court in FIR No.391/02. It was further averred that the Patiala House Court of New Delhi has already disposed off the said case in the year 2002 and imposed fine upon the complainant, which has duly been paid by him. Now the demand raised by the opposite parties for supply of copy of the judgment in the said case is not relevant and is against the rights of the complainant. At the time of renewal of passport, the complainant supplied each and every document to the Passport Authorities, Chandigarh and if any, investigation is required to be done by them, then it can be done from the Passport Office, Chandigarh. The complainant has never been convicted by any Court of law throughout India since last 16 years and he does not have any criminal record. Moreover, on 10.4.2016 the complainant travelled UAE and during his visit no objection was imposed by any authority of India but now the opposite parties have been unnecessarily harassing him by not renewing his passport. Even legal notice served by the complainant to opposite parties through his counsel also served no purpose. The complainant made several visits to the office of the opposite parties for issuance of his passport but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum for issuance of directions to them to issue passport to him and to pay compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for causing great mental tension, First Appeal No.131 of 2020 4 agony, inconvenience and harassment and ₹5,500/-, as litigation expenses.
Defence of Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2:
4. Upon notice, opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 did not appear and were proceeded against ex parte before the District Forum, vide order dated 31.7.2019. However, a letter was received from the opposite parties through post in which they asserted that Passport Offices do not fall under the purview of 'service provider' and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the complaint.
Evidence of the Complainant:
5. The complainant tendered in ex-parte evidence his own affidavit as Ex.CW-1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5. Finding of the District Forum:
6. The District Forum, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the complainant, allowed the complaint in the terms stated above, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal by the opposite parties.
Contentions of the Parties
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. I have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties has vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is illegal and against the settled law. The issuance of First Appeal No.131 of 2020 5 a passport is a sovereign function of the passport issuing authorities. Passport is not a common commodity and rather it is a valid permission for a citizen to enter into another country. Issuance of passport does not come under the definition of 'service' as defined in the C.P. Act and, thus, this matter does not come under the purview of the C.P. Act. It is further contended that the Passport Authority can refuse a passport to an applicant on valid grounds. The complainant applied for re-issuance of passport and the same has been denied on the ground of non-supply of copy of judgment passed by Patiala House Court of New Delhi in FIR No.391/2002 filed against the complainant. The District Forum has not considered all these facts and passed an illegal and arbitrary order, which is liable to be set aside by allowing the present appeal. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties placed reliance upon following cases:
i) S. Vijayakumar v. Regional Passport Officer Revision Petition No.3322 of 2009 decided on 10.04.2015 (NC);
ii) Passport Officer v. Ajay Bansal Revision Petition No. 3785 of 2013 decided vide order dated 13.03.2015 (NC); and
iii) Passport Officer v. Avtar Singh F.A. No.856 of 2012, decided by this Commission 08.10.2015.
9. Per contra, the sum and substance of the oral as well as written arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant is that FIR No.391/2002 was registered against the complainant by IGI Airport, New Delhi regarding visa and the Patiala House Court of First Appeal No.131 of 2020 6 New Delhi imposed fine of ₹50,000/- upon the complainant while disposing off the said FIR, which has duly been paid. At present there is no FIR pending against the complainant. Therefore, the District Forum has passed a well reasoned order after duly appreciating the pleadings and the evidence on record. There is no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order and the same is liable to be upheld.
Consideration of Contentions
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. Admittedly, the complainant applied for re-issue of passport with the opposite parties, which was registered, vide File No.AS1072427854818. Admittedly FIR No.391/2002 was registered against the complainant by the IGI Airport, New Delhi. The case of the complainant is that the said case has already been disposed by the Patiala House Court of New Delhi in which a sum of ₹50,000/- was imposed, which has already been paid by him. The opposite parties are now insisting for supply of copy of judgment in that case. In the present appeal the opposite parties submit that the dispute is not a 'consumer dispute' and the Passport Authority does not fall in the definition of 'service provider' as defined under the C.P. Act.
12. The only legal question to be determined in this appeal is, whether the complainant falls under the definition of a 'consumer' and whether the duties of the passport office fall under the definition of 'service', as defined in the C.P. Act?
First Appeal No.131 of 2020 7
13. 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 above said FIR against the complainant raised suspicion in the mind of opposite party No.2 and they refused to re-issue the passport as 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 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 he does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' as contained in Section 2(1) (d) of the C.P. Act.
First Appeal No.131 of 2020 8
14. 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 a consumer as defined in the C.P. Act.
15. In another case "NrisinghaMuran 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.
16. Hon'ble National Commission in S. Vijayakumar's case (supra) has 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 2013 (Passport Officer Vs. Ajay Bansal), wherein referring to the earlier orders passed First Appeal No.131 of 2020 9 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."
17. 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 C.P. Act.
28. 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 C.P. Act.
19. Furthermore, this Commission while deciding FA No.226 of 2010 "Regional Passport Officer and Anr. v. Tarwinderjit Singh", vide order dated 07.05.2013, held that a person either applying for the issuance of the passport or renewal thereof to the Passport Officer does not fall under the definition of the 'consumer', as defined in the C.P. Act.
First Appeal No.131 of 2020 10
20. Similar law was laid down by this Commission in the following cases:-
i) First Appeal No.856 of 2012 (Passport Officer v. Avtar Singh Gondara), vide order dated 08.10.2015;
ii) First Appeal No.175 of 2019 (The Regional Passport Officer and another v. Paramjit Kaur Dhaliwal), vide order dated 08.11.2019;
iii) First Appeal No.477 of 2019 (The Regional Passport Officer and another v. Sukhjinder Singh Mangat and others), vide order dated 08.11.2019;
iv) First Appeal No.478 of 2019 (The Regional Passport Officer and another v. Sadhu Singh and others), vide order dated 08.11.2019;
v) First Appeal No.677 of 2019 (Regional Passport Office and another v. Mohar Singh Brar), vide order dated 06.02.2020;
vi) First Appeal No.705 of 2019 (Regional Passport Office v. Kuldeep Singh), vide order dated 06.02.2020;
vii) First Appeal No.54 of 2020 (Regional Passport Office v. Gurpreet Singh and others), vide order dated 19.06.2020; and
viii) First Appeal No.55 of 2020 (Regional Passport Office v. Ravneet Singh and others), vide order dated 19.06.2020.
First Appeal No.131 of 2020 11
21. 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 C.P. Act. The District Forum failed to take notice of all these facts, while passing the impugned order.
22. 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.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT July 06, 2020 Bansal