PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the parties present. These two revision petitions will be decided by the same judgment as both of them entail the same question of facts and law. 2. The complainants, Smt. Beena Sharma and her daughter Smriti Sharma applied for their passports on 17.07.2007 in the office of Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Jhalana, Doongri, Jaipur. They deposited the requisite fee. They complied with all the formalities. However, the passports were not issued. They wanted to see Beena Sharma’s niece. But due to non-issuance of the passports, they could not go to U.S.A. Reminders were sent and ultimately two separate complaints were filed before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaints and directed the OP to issue passports to the complainants within one month from the date of its order. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- each was also imposed on the OP for causing agony to the complainants. 3. Aggrieved by that order, appeals were filed before the State Commission. The State Commission, consisting of as many as three members, without applying their mind and in a cryptic manner, dismissed the appeals. 4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the respondents/complainants submit that there was deficiency on the part of the petitioner and he further submits that the petitioner/OP has already issued the passports and has paid the compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- in each case. He submits that thus the revision petitions have become infructuous and the same should be dismissed. 5. All these arguments are feckless. It must be borne in mind that to issue passport is the sovereign power of the Government of India. It cannot be challenged in the Consumer Fora. It is not incumbent on the Government to issue the passport in each and every case. It can be withheld for some valid reasons. This Commission in the case of Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore Versus Anuradha Thadipathri Gopinath in Revision Petition No. 2389 of 2008 was pleased to hold that “issuance or non-issuance of passport is statutory duty and may not be a consumer dispute”. 6. The attention of this Commission was also drawn towards the order passed by Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma, President, Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein it was held:- “In this Appeal none of the parties present despite being served by notice. We have perused the order of the District Forum and we are of the view that when the Passport Officer entertains Application for grant of Passport and receives Rs. 60/- as fees for making the Application, he does not render any service to potential users. Complainant Respondent was, therefore, not a consumer within the meaning of the term as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and no complaint based on deficiency in service for non-grant of the Passport or delay in refunding the fees realized is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Fourm, Udaipur was wrong in awarding compensation to the Complainant. We, therefore, allow this Appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum, Udaipur dated 13.04.21993 and dismiss Complaint Case No. 620/92 filed by the Complainant Respondent. The amount, if any, recovered by the Complainant from the Appellant would be got refunded to the Appellant.” 7. Consequently, we accept the revision petitions, set aside the orders passed by the Fora below and dismiss the complaints. 8. The complainants in both the cases are directed to return the damages to the office concerned and pay interest at the rate of 9%, from the date the money was received till its realization. The Fora below are also directed to apply their mind and decide the cases as per Law. It is their bounden duty to follow the Judgment rendered by Justice N.C. Sharma quoted above. | 
