West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/448/2013

MR. GYANRANJAN DAS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1). THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT O - Opp.Party(s)

SUSANDIP PATHAK.

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _448_ OF ___2013_

 

DATE OF FILING : 19.11.2013                     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  28.02.2017

 

Present                         :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :   Sharmi Basu

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT        :     Mr. Gyanaranjan Das, s/o late Biswanath Das of 7, Red Cross Place, Kolkata – 700 001.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :   1.    The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, 4, Brabourne Road, Kolkata- 1.

                                                2.     The Officer-In-Charge, Passport Seva Kendra, Kolkata, Askash Tower, Eastern Bye Pass, Ruby, 781, Anandapur, Kolkata, P.S. Kasba, South 24-Parganas.   

                                          

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant on the ground that he is a subscriber of the O.P-1 within the meaning of C.P Act, 1986 who applied for Passport online bearing application reference no.12-1003084136 dated 8.12.2012 as per statutory rules and regulations and procedures implemented by the O.P-1. It has claimed that complainant was given an appointment on 27.12.2012 by the O.P-1 with the O.P-2 being the Processor to the said application of the complainant on behalf of the O.P-1 at the address of the O.P-2 given in the cause title hereof for pre-checking of the documents of the complainant. It has further claimed that complainant called on the office of the O.P-2 . Upon checking and verifying the documents of the complainant the O.P-2 issued its Acknowledgement of the visit of the complainant vide letter dated 27.12.2012. under File Reference No.CA2061730229312 and the said acknowledgement disclosed categorically that the O.P-2 verified all the documents with its originals and that however confirmation from Issuing Authority, being the O.P-1 is required. After being satisfied with all the documents the O.P-1 received a sum of Rs.1500/- for Passport Seva. It has further started that no passport was issued after waiting a considerable period and finding no other alternative complainant issued letter through ld. Advocate on 25.7.2013 to the O.P-1 and thereafter on 17.9.2013 once again to the O.P-1. But no reply was made. Accordingly complainant claimed that conduct of the O.Ps is definitely an act of deficiency of service being the complainant to put in immense sufferance by causing mental agony. So, complainant is entitled to a direction upon the O.P to issue passport in favour of the complainant or in the alternative to explain the reason for non-issuance of the passport and also entitled to a direction upon the O.Ps for payment of Rs.1 lacs towards damage for putting the complainant into sufferance  and for deficiency in rendering services.

 

 

The O.Ps contested the case by filing written version and claimed that there was no deficiency in service on the party of the O.Ps. It is the positive case of the O.Ps that after receiving the application as per procedure the matter was sent to the police for police verification but unfortunately the adverse pose report was received from the Deputy Commissioner of Policy, Security Control, from the office at 237, A.J.C. Bose, Road, Kolkata mentioning that place of birth of the subject as well as permanent address may kindly be verified . In this circumstances passport could not be issued in favour of the complainant and the same was already intimated to the complainant on 16.12.2013. It has claimed that complainant failed to submit any compliance of the said clarification and also failed to submit any office order for allotment of room at the address which was written in the cause title of the complainant, nor hew produced to the police any documents under what capacity he was/is residing in the said address.  So, the police report dated 10.3.2013 and 20.3.2013 are annexed for kind consideration of this Bench. Apart from that place of birth was given by the complainant at Dimirpan of Orissa and verification to the place cannot be made by the police authority and due to adverse remark as mentioned hereinabove the O.Ps could not be able to issue Passport in the name of the complainant save and except what has been specifically admitted , O.Ps denied each and every allegations. It has strongly claimed that the  complainant has not come within the meaning of subscriber of the C.P Act, 1986. Accordingly O.Ps pray for dismissal of the case.

O.P nos. 1 and 2 contested the case but the case against O.P-3 Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block was rejected by this Bench vide order no.3 dated 3.12.2013.

Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps or not.

                                                            Decision with reasons

Complainant has claimed by filing one acknowledgement letter showing that documents submitted successfully , verifying with the originals however, confirmation of issuing authority is required. It is to be mentioned here that in the said documents dated 5.2.2013 filed by the complainant issued by the Regional Passport office, Kolkata in the bottom it has mentioned by star mark “Subject to police verification and finger print matching and double star denotes police verification mode description”. There are three categories of issuance of Passport (i) Police verification shall be carried out before issuance of passport (ii) police verification shall be carried out post issuance of passport, (iii) no police verification shall be carried out for issuance of passport.

These are the three categories of issuance of passport and complainant definitely falls under category of police verification which shall be carried out before issuance of passport, that is why, O.Ps informed the complainant on 16.2.2013 that following discrepancies have been observed to the applications which are (i) place of bath has not been verified in the report, (ii) police also questioned the veracity of the permanent address in the application. So, complainant was directed to meet RPO i.e. Regional Passport Office immediately after receipt of the letter and produce proper clarification on the above subject. From the police report we find that that the said report is adverse. From the police verification report it further appears that Column nos. 1,2,3 was affirmative and 4 to 11 are answered negative. It has mentioned that P.O.B of the subject as well as permanent address kindly be verified and in the bottom “Not recommended (adverse PVR). This is the report of S.I B Mukherjee on 10.3.2013.

This is the totality of the circumstances which clearly suggests that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P nos. 1 and 2 . It should be borne in mind that for issuing any international passport, the Passport Authority has every right to be satisfied with the assistance of the police verification. Until and unless the said report is satisfied , the passport authority has no power to issue passport considering the safety and security of the country which is a paramount consideration fo the passport authority. So, we find that complainant has purposely suppressed the letter dated 16.12.2013 issued by the Passport Authority herein the O.Ps and filed this case unnecessary. Accordingly, this complaint should be treated as a vexatious complaint, particularly when the passport authority ,O.P-2 performed their duty of the safety and security of the country and it was questioned by the complainant unnecessary when the O.Ps filed written version along with the documents wherefrom everything has come to light before this Bench. Apart from that the acknowledgement letter clearly shows that passport verification shall be carried before issuance of passport and definitely complainant is not that category of citizen , for whom, verification shall be carried out post issuance of passport as well as no verification shall be carried out for issuance of passport which are only entitled by the citizens who have an  identity either in the State Government or Central Government or in case of Ministers and High Court Judges , and High Officials of the State Government and Central Government,  as the case may be.

So, complainant’s category to get passport is “police verification shall be carried out before issuance of passport and complainant was aware of he same when letter dated 16.12.2013 was sent to their address and adverse report was recorded. Thus the totality of the circumstances clearly suggests that it is a clear case of suppression of material facts by the complainant. But we restrain ourselves in treating the case as a vexatious complaint under section 26 of the C.P Act, 1986 .

Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is dismissed in lemini against the O.P nos. 1 and 2  since O.Ps have no deficiency of service and what the O.Ps did, did for the safety and security of the country which is appreciable by this Bench in the eye of Law.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

 

                                                       Member                                                                President

Dictated and corrected by me

                               

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

                                               

 

Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is dismissed in lemini against the O.P nos. 1 and 2  since O.Ps have no deficiency of service and what the O.Ps did, did for the safety and security of the country which is appreciable by this Bench in the eye of Law.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

 

                                                       Member                                                                President