D.O.F. 15.06.2009

                                          D.O.O. 22.05.2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:   Sri. K. Gopalan                                     :        President

                Smt. K.P. Preethakumari                     :         Member

                Smt. M.D. Jessy                                    :        Member

Dated this the  22^nd   day of May, 2012.

C.C.No.157/2009

Sandhosh Mulayan Valappil ,

S/o. Balakrishnan,

‘Madhavi Bhavan’,                                                :         Complainant

P.O. Pallikkunnu,

Kannur-4.

(Rep. by Adv. P.V. Abhayakumar)

1.  The Officer in Charge,

     District Passport Cell, Kannur.

2.  Regional Passport Officer,

     Kozhikode.

(Rep. by Adv. B.P. Saseendran)

3.  Sub Inspector of Police,

     Special Branch,                                               :         Opposite Parties

     Kannur.

4.  The Superintendent of Police,                        

     Kannur.

5.  Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence),

     Thiruvananthapuram.

                                                 O R D E R

Sri. K. Gopalan, President.

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to issue the renewed passport and to pay ` 50,000 as compensation with cost of this litigation.

          Brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows : Complainant submitted his passport for renewal on 22.09.2004.  The police verification was completed but renewed passport was not issued so far.  ‘Complainant’ was informed that since the complainant concealed the fact of pending criminal case against him issuance of renewal passport was withheld. There was criminal case pending against him.  In truth there was a case pending against one Santhosh Chakkarakkal, P.O. Pallikkunnu in which the defacto complainant was one M.Geetha.  This complainant is no way related with that person  against whom the case was pending.  The officer concerned was satisfied with explanation.  But still they did not issue renewed passport. Whenever enquiry was made with 2^nd opposite party they repeated assurance to issue passport at the earliest.  Complainant lost many employment opportunities due to lack of passport.  So, lawyer notice was issued on 20.04.05 to 3^rd opposite party which was ignored.  The acts of opposite parties are clear negligence and deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance of the notice the opposite parties appeared and filed versions separately.  The brief content of the version of 1^st opposite party is as follows : The complainant never had approached the 1^st opposite party except at the time of submitting the application for renewal of his passport.  The service of opposite party is limited only to the extend of accepting the passport application from public and forwarding one copy each to the Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode, Office of the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Trivandrum for SBCID stamping and Nodal Officer, District Passport Cell, Kannur for verification.  Hence 1^st opposite party is an unnecessary party.

          2^nd opposite party filed version as follows :  The complaint does not disclose a cause of action.  Complaint does not disclose any clear right to sue this party.  The matter is barred by limitation.  This opposite party had received a verification report from the Superintendent of Police, Kannur stating that “Recommended – computer search slip is not received.  On local enquiry there is no adverse remarks.  Passport can be issued if the result is positive.  Subsequently received the letter from Superintendent of Police, Kannur stating that the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Thiruvananthapuram had informed that some adverse remarks were noted as against the complainant requesting to initiate action to stop the issuance of passport.  The action taken in this regard was informed by this opposite party to 4^th opposite party. As no further communications were received from 4^th opposite party a re-verification was issued to him on 18.04.2007.  After lapse of one year, the matter was reviewed and the file was temporarily closed.  It is made clear that the file would be reopened and the complainant would be issued his renewed passport subject to the receipt of clear CID report.

          3^rd opposite party filed version separately contending as follows:  Complainant was an applicant for renewal of his passport.  This opposite party has no role either in verification of passport applications and further proceedings.  It is false to say that this opposite party had sent an enquiry report to 2^nd opposite party stating that a criminal case was pending against the complainant.   This opposite party is not aware of the lawyer notice.  Hence to dismiss the complaint against this opposite party.

          4^th opposite party in his affidavit stated as follows :  This opposite party his office ever informed 2^nd opposite party that the criminal case was pending against the complainant.  This opposite party sent the passport application of the complainant after verification to the passport office on 01.11.2004 as recommended with a remark that “on local enquiry there was no adverse remarks noticed against the complainant and the passport can be issued, if the result is positive”.  Thereafter on 18.11.2004, this office had informed 2^nd opposite party that there was an information received from the office of the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Thiruvananthapuram that some adverse remark was noticed against the applicant and requested to stop the procedure of passport issuance to the applicant and also to return the verification report and relevant documents.  But 2^nd opposite party caused a letter to this opposite party’s office that they were unable to return the report since they had already updated their records and passport will be issued only on receipt of further recommendation report.  This office never received any reverification application from 2^nd opposite party in file No.Z645520/04.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.   This opposite party is ready to extend any legally bound service to complainant in the event of re-verification application from 2^nd opposite party. 

          In the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.     Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2.     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3.     Whether complainant is entitled for any remedy as prayed for?

4.     Relief and cost.

The evidence consist of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and documentary evidence Ext.A1 to A4, Ext.X1 and X1(a) marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to B5 marked on the side of opposite parties.

Issues No.1 to 4 :

          Admittedly the complaint is one with respect to the question of renewal of the passport of the complainant.  Complainant submitted application for renewal of his passport.  But the opposite party failed to grant passport to the complainant.  The case of the complainant is that even after the police verification, the complainant was not issued the renewed passport nor they communicated the reason for non-renewal of the granted passport.  Due to lack of renewed passport he lost many employment opportunities.  2^nd opposite party, the Regional Passport officer mainly raised the question of maintainability.  2^nd opposite party further contended that they could not issue passport only because there was no enquiry report from the side of 3^rd and 4^th opposite party. 

          The first question to be discussed is whether the complaint is maintainable or not?  1^st and 2^nd opposite party contended that the complaint against passport authority is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.  This concept is absolutely wrong.  In the famous case Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore Vs. Anuradha Thadipathri Gopinath reported in III (2008) CPJ 118(N.C.) the Hon’ble National Commission found deficiency in service on the part of Passport Officer.  The Passport Officer issued the passport without signature Hon’ble National Commission found that a passport, which is issued without the signature of the competent authority, is on the face of it invalid which would have placed the complainant in a precarious position and she might have been hauled up for various offences if she had tried to go abroad on that passport. Such laps amounts to a serious deficiency in discharge of duties, which is in the nature of rendering of service, hence, the complaint is maintainable.”  So the contention no case would be maintainable against passport authorities cannot be considered well founded.

          In Regional Passport Officer Vs. Dr. Rajesh Bhatia II(1997)CPJ 609, the subject matter was renewal of a passport. 
Complainant applied for renewal of passport.  Complaint filed alleging deposit of 600 was uncalled for.  This is a case in which complainant submitted passport for renew on 21.07.1993 and received the passport duly renewed on 22.07.1993.

          Anyhow, it cannot be ignored that by the institution of the passport the state has used its sovereign power in making the passport indispensable to anyone who wants to leave India.  The whole issuance of passport is therefore, in public interest.  It is not meant to serve any individual able and willing to pay.  It is meant to further the policy of the Government in matter of Security, immigration and emigration.  It is essential to bear in mind that in the case of passport considerable amount of discretion is vested on the Government to grant it or not to grant, to impound or not to impound.  It has to be considered that a passport is not a commodity which is purchased or sold for consideration but is only in the nature of a permission granted by the sovereign to its citizen to go outside the country.

          Bearing in mind the sound principles it can be seen that the actual issue involved in the case in hand does not require deep dig into the question of law for a final solution, since it is so simple and quite possible, if the remaining proceedings before the passport authorities has been completed, in its usual course of legal process.  2^nd opposite party has made it clear that the file would be reopened  and the complainant would be issued his renewed passport subject to the receipt of clear CID report.  At the same time 4^th opposite party without prejudice to the contentions he had been made it clear that 4^th opposite party is ready to extend any legally bound service to the complainant in the event of receipt of re-verification application from the office of 2^nd opposite party.

          Hence taking into account the facts and circumstances we are under the impression that a re-verification and the decision upon the same in respect of issuing renewed passport will meet the end of justice.  The issues are thus considered favourably and order passed accordingly.

          It is therefore, order passed directing 2^nd opposite party, the Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode to call for the necessary reports from the concerned officials without any prejudice in the manner of legal proceedings and on his satisfaction to issue renewed passport within a reasonable time not exceeding 3 months, avoiding delay.  No order as to costs.

                            Sd/-                         Sd/-                      Sd/-

                     President                    Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Copy of the old passport

A2. Renewal receipt

A3.  Letter dt.17.3.05 sent by  4^th OP to 2^nd OP

A4.  Copy of the lawyer

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1.   Copy of the despatch register maintained by OP 4^th OP

B2.   Copy of the letter issued by 4^th OP to 2^nd OP dt.18.11.04

B3 & B4. Copy of the letter issued by 2^nd  OP to 4^th  OP

            dt. 22.11.04 & 18.4.07

B5. Copy of the letter issued by 4^th OP to 2^nd OP

X1. Copy of the (verification report) letter dt.17.3.05 sent by  4^th OP to 2^nd OP

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1. Preeja.J.P.

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT