Date of Filing: 15-05-2015                                               Date of Final Order: 28-09-2016

Sri Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, President.

Order No.24, dated 28/09/2016.

            Parties file hazira through their Ld. Agents.

           Today is fixed for passing necessary order in respect of the hearing of the petition of the O.P.No.2 dated 13/07/1016. In the said petition, the O.P.No.2 has prayed for reject/dismiss of the present case with exemplary cost due to some vexatious of claim and harassment to the O.P.No.2.

           The matter is taken up accordingly.

           Though an opportunity was given to the Complainant to file W/O, if any, in this matter but nothing has been filed up to the date of hearing.

           Perused the case record.

           It appears that this case has been filed by the Complainant/Amardip Ghosh on 15/05/2015 praying for compensation and directing the O.Ps to issue Passport to the complainant and his daughter. Ld. Agent for the O.P at the time of hearing of the instant case has filed some documents as per firisti/list i.e. the copy of Passport Act, copy of Passport Rules, copy of Passport manual and a copy of Judgment passed by Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Redressal Commission being Appeal No.269/12 decided on 30/04/2014 along with some copy of letters/correspondences in between the Complainant and the O.P.

          We have meticulously gone through the above said documents which have been filed by the O.P No.2.

          The Ld. Agent for the O.P streniously argued that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant case of the Complainant.

          On perusal of the passport Manual, 2010 it appears that Lower Courts are barred from entertaining suits, application or other proceeding against any order made under this Act. The said case law has been referred by the O.P passed in Appeal No.269/12 decided on 30/04/2014 wherein Hon'ble State Commission has been pleased to observe that the issuance and non-issuance of Passport is a statutory duty and hence the same cannot be challenged before a Consumer Court. The State is not providing any service to any person for consideration. There is no rule compelling them to process and issue of Passport within 45 days. The said Hon'ble State Commission, had been pleased further to observe that Hon’ble National Commission in a case of Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore Vs. Anuradha Thadppurath Gopinath pointed out that issuance of Passport is not a sovereign function but a statutory function. The issuance or non issuance of Passport is not a consumer dispute. The appellant was not bound to issue passport to every applicant and it is a matter of policy. Issue of Passport is a statutory function, definitely it is the instrument through which the sovereign protective arm of the Union of India is extended to its citizens living aboard. It is further observed by the said Hon’ble State Commission that an applicant cannot insist the Passport Officer to issue/renewed Passport within a prescribed time frame. So, no deficiency in service is involved in such a matter. The statutory function is not within the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

           The Complainant alleged in this case that he applied to the O.P for issue of Passport by paying requisite fee but there is enormous delay. He further alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Passport Officer.

           We have already observed that the Passport Officer was performing only a statutory function. There is no hiring of service for consideration. The fee paid for issue of passport is only an imposition by way of tax. Since no hiring of service is involved, the Complainant is not a Consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Actually, the passport or travel document issued under this Act shall in all time remain the property of Central Government as enshrined in Sec.17 of Passport Act, 1967.

           Accordingly, having heard both sides and on considering the materials on record, we are in view that the petition of the O.P.No.2 should be allowed and consequently the complaint be dismissed.

Hence,

          it is ORDERED

                        that the petition of the O.P. No.2 dated 13/07/2016 is here by allowed. The complaint being Case No. CC/44/2015 is not maintainable before this Forum and accordingly the complaint is hereby dismissed without any cost.

         Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to the concerned party.