State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Regional Passport Officer vs Gurmeet Singh on 5 August, 2020
1st ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.434 of 2019
Date of Institution: 16.07.2019
Order reserved on: 07.07.2020
Date of Decision : 05.08.2020
1. Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar-143 001.
2. Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of External Affairs,
New Delhi- 110001.
.....Appellants/opposite parties no.2&3
Versus
1. Gurmeet Singh, aged about 33 years, S/o Jarnail Singh, R/o
Society Nagar, Back Side Old Jail Ariyan Wala Road, Faridkot,
Tehsil and District Faridkot.
.....Respondent no.1/complainant
2. Secretary Department of Home Affairs, Punjab, Civil
Secretariat, Chandigarh-160017.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot-151203.
.....Proforma Respondents/opposite parties no.1 & 4
First Appeal against order dated
13.05.2019 passed by District Forum,
Faridkot.
Quorum:-
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member.
Ms. Kiran Sibal, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Indresh Goel, Advocate For respondent no.1 : Ex-parte For respondents no.2&3 : None ..................................................................................First Appeal No.434 of 2019 2
KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER:-
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against order dated 13.05.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by appellant/complainant against respondents/opposite parties (in short 'OPs') was allowed directing OPs to issue passport to complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 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
2. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that complainant applied for reissuance of passport with Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar (OP no.2). The application was registered with file no.AS107252961 dated 28.06.2018. He also paid prescribed fees to OP no.2, as the reissuance of passport of complainant was proceeded by OP no.2. OP no.2 sent the case to police for verification. In its verification report, the police allegedly reported to OP no.2 that FIR no.177 dated 27.06.2011 u/s 307, 325, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC has been registered against the complainant. The police had not disclosed the true facts in the alleged investigation report, as in the FIR no.177, police had conducted the enquiry and complainant was found to be innocent. The S.P. (H), Faridkot had sent this report to the concerned Trial Court. Thereafter, JMIC 1st First Appeal No.434 of 2019 3 Class, Faridkot, vide order dated 10.10.2011 intimated Superintendent Jails, Faridkot to release the complainant from the judicial custody. Police did not present the challan against co- accused and vide order dated 11.06.2015, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot ordered to consign the case in record room. It was further averred that no case has been pending against complainant. OP no.2 had full knowledge of the same, but it still has been issuing the letter for unnecessary clarifications. The complainant made several visits to the office of OP no.2, but to no effect. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs for not issuing the passport to complainant. He prayed for direction to OPs for issuance of passport to the complainant and also for the compensation of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. Defence of OPs:
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate written version and contested the complaint of the complainant.
4. OP nos.1 and 4 filed joint written statement by averring that initially FIR No.177 dated 27.06.2011 was registered against complainant and others under Section 324/323/148/149 IPC at the instance of Sarabjit Singh. During the course of investigation, Police got statements recorded of all accused alongwith others. On 16.07.2011 after obtaining medical report of injuries, DDR no.18 dated 16.07.2011, the offences were enhanced by adding section 325/307 IPC. On the application dated 05.08.2011 moved by father First Appeal No.434 of 2019 4 of complainant, SP (H) conducted the enquiry in which the complainant was found to be innocent, vide report dated 26.09.2011. Thereafter a compromise was effected between parties and therefore, Police prepared cancellation report, vide final report dated 21.01.2012 and same was yet to be approved by the Court of concerned Ilaqua Magistrate, Faridkot and by the Sr. Superintendent of Faridkot. The presence of complainant has been required before Law and therefore, Police gave true and correct information to the Passport Authority with regard to pendency of criminal case FIR No. 177 filed against complainant and there was no irregularity in report dated 07.07.2018. OP nos.1 and 4 controverted the other averments of complainant by denying any deficiency in service on their part. OP nos.1 and 4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. OP nos.2 and 3 filed their joint written reply stating that complaint filed by complainant was not maintainable as no cause of action arised against them. The complainant had not come to the Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the Forum. The answering OP admitted that complainant applied for passport facility in re-issue category, upon which cause was granted on Pre PVR basis and on 28.06.2018, as per rules, personal particulars form of complainant was sent to SSP, Faridkot for police verification report. Police verification report was received in which it was mentioned that FIR No.177 dated 27.06.2011 under Sections 307/325/324/323/148/149 of IPC was registered against complainant First Appeal No.434 of 2019 5 at Police Station, City Faridkot and the cancellation report has been pending. Accordingly, on receipt of adverse Police Verification Report, show cause notice was issued to complainant to clarify regarding FIR. Complainant did not submit any judgment of the Court or any cancellation report to justify his position, rather he filed the complaint on false and frivolous allegations. The answering OPs controverted the other averments of complainant by denying any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. OP nos.2 and 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Evidence of the parties and finding of the District Forum
6. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C- 1 alongwith documents i.e. application form Ex C-2, online appointment receipt Ex.C-3, passport application form Ex.C-4, token Ex.C-5, copy of rapat no.49 Ex.C-6, copy of court order Ex.C-7, police report Ex.C-8, copy of order of JMIC, Faridkot Ex.C-9 and receipt C-10.
7. As against it, OP nos.1 and 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jastinder Singh, DSP, Faridkot as Ex OP-1,4/1, copy of rapat no.18 dated 16.07.2011 Ex.OP-1,4/2, copy of FIR no.117 dated 27.06.2011 Ex.OP-1,4/3.
8. OP nos.2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Munish Kumar ExOP-2,3/1 alongwith documents i.e. passport application form Ex.OP-2,3/2, copy of receipt Ex.OP-2,3/3, copy of particular form Ex.OP-2,3/4, copy of clarification notice dated 16.07.2018 First Appeal No.434 of 2019 6 Ex.OP-2,3/5, copy of section 6 of Passport Act Ex.OP-2,3/6 and copy of police verification report Ex.OP-2,3/7.
9. The District Forum, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order of the District Forum, OP nos.2 and 3 now appellants have directed this appeal. Contentions of the appellant
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, as respondent no.1 was set against ex-parte in this appeal due to their non-appearance and none has appeared on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 at the time of arguments. We have also carefully gone through the record of the case.
11. The appellant strongly contended that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is illegal and against the settled law. The issuance of 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 citizen to enter into another country. Issuance of passport does not come under the definition of 'service' as defined in the Act and, thus, this matter does not come under the purview of the Act. It was further contended that the Passport Authority can refuse a passport to an applicant on valid grounds. It has been further contended that the complainant is seeking reissuance of passport, which was not issued to him on the ground that the office of the appellant had received adverse report First Appeal No.434 of 2019 7 from the police authorities, there being pending FIR against the respondent no.1. The complainant himself had not produced any cancellation report or order of the Court regarding cancellation of the said FIR. The passport authorities could not go beyond the report submitted by the police authorities. The District Forum has not considered all these facts and passed a wrong order, which is liable to be set aside by way of allowing the present appeal. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants 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.
Consideration of Contentions
12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties.
13. Admittedly, the complainant applied for reissuance of his passport to the Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar. The case of the complainant is that OP no.2 refused to reissue the passport on the basis of report submitted by the police authorities. The case of the OP nos.1 and 4 was that police prepared cancellation report which was forwarded to the office of Sr. Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, First Appeal No.434 of 2019 8 vide R.C. No.16 dated 21.01.2012, but yet the matter is to be finally approved by the learned Court of Law and the FIR No.177 has been pending for judicial approval. The stand of appellants is that they sought clarification from complainant, vide Ex.C-2 with regard to the said FIR, but he had not produced any cancellation report of the said FIR and rather filed the consumer complaint. The complaint does not fall under the ambit of the Consumer ProtectionAct, 1986 being not a service.
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 First Appeal No.434 of 2019 9 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 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 NrisinghaMuran Chakraborty & Ors. v. State of West Bengal AIR 1977 SC 1174, it has been held by the First Appeal No.434 of 2019 10 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 in S. Vijayakumar's case (supra) 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 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 First Appeal No.434 of 2019 11 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. 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 Act.
22. 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) decided on 08.10.2015; and
(ii) First Appeal No.175 of 2019 (The Regional Passport Officer & another Vs. Paramjit Kaur Dhaliwal) decided on 08.11.2019 (bunch of three cases).
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.
First Appeal No.434 of 2019 12
24. In view of our above discussion, the appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed, being not maintainable.
25. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of work and less staff.
(RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) PRESIDING MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER August 05, 2020.
(MM)