Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Jasleen Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant is permanent resident of above said address and is peace loving person. The complainant has applied for his passport  in the passport office i.e. Opposite Party and paid the requisite charges/ fee and as such, he has hired the services of the Opposite Party for consideration and as such he is consumer of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has issued passport bearing No.M1757342 issued on 8.9.2014 valid upto 7.9.2024 in favour of the complainant. Photo copy of the passport is attached. After few months, Opposite Party  recalled the complainant and they inquired from the office of Additional District Registrar, Birth & Death Office at Civil surgeon, Tarn Taran vide their letter No.AS1067942004614 dated 9.8.2014 and alleged that birth certificate supplied by the complainant to Opposite Party is fake. Copy of the letter is attached. Thereafter, the Opposite Party has impounded the original passport of the complainant, affidavit and birth certificate on 16.1.2015. Copy of the letter dated 16.1.2015 and copy of birth certificate is attached. Lateron, the complainant approached the Additional District Registrar, Birth & Death Office at Civil surgeon, Tarn Taran and they disclosed  that they have already sent the reply to passport office regarding the enquiry of birth certificate through their letter vide S.T.Branch/2013/78 dated 22.1.2015 that birth certificate of Jasleen Singh son of Manjinder Singh was issued by their office. Copy of letter dated 22.1.2015 is enclosed. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Party and requested them that his birth certificate is genuine one and issued by the competent authority and his passport be released in his favour, but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and till date has not released the passport of the complainant. The complainant has sought the following reliefs vide instant complaint.

a)       Opposite Party be directed to release the passport of the complainant immediately.

b)      Opposite Party be directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, pain and agony.

c)       The costs of the proceedings to the tune of Rs.5000/- and any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled under the law and equity may also be granted against Opposite Party.         

 Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that  the present complaint is  not legally maintainable in the present form; the present complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties. In this case the complainant had not made Opposite Party Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and the Passport Officer, Amritsar, under which the replying Opposite Party is working, intentionally and deliberately. The complainant had deliberately and intentionally not made them as Opposite Parties  and as per section 79 and Order XXVII Rule 5-A of CPC, Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, can only be made party. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed; the present complaint is filed without any cause of action. The Passport Officer is doing Statutory Duty of the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs. The complainant does not fall in the definition of the Consumer. This Forum has got no jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present complaint; that it is settled law that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try, entertain the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act regarding the statutory duty performed by the officials of Passport Office under the Indian Passport Act; the Passport Officer, Amritsar is doing statutory duty of the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs. The complainant does not fall within the definition  of the Consumer that the Passport Authority is working and issuing passport which is within the discretion of the central government and for the issuance of the same rules and regulations are to be followed. The passport authority can refuse to issue a passport to an applicant on valid  grounds as per the Passport Act, 1967 and the Passport Rules, 1980 circulars and instructions issued from time to time. The applicant who moved an application for a passport is not a consumer as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act. An applicant of the passport is not hiring the services of the passport office for getting a passport and that the duty of the passport officer or the function of a passport office does not fall under the category of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed; that it is a settled law that  the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and  entertain the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act regarding the statutory duty performed by the officials of the Passport Office under the Passport Act, 1967 and The Passport Rules, 1980 amended upto date; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. The complainant has not disclosed the fact that he has applied for issuance of passport in the name of Jasleen Singh son of Manjinder Singh, resident of Village: Gujarpur, P.O: Gharka, Tehsil: Khadur Sahib, District Tarn Taran on 28.7.2014 vide File No. AS 1067947004614 in fresh category. The complainant had submitted application form for issuance of Passport. The complainant had submitted copy of the birth certificate vide registration No.1 registered on 1.2.1998 with Date of Birth as 19.1.1998 issued by Additional District Registrar, Birth & Death, Tarn Taran, copy of Matriculation certificate issued by Punjab School Education Board in the year 2013 attested by Satish Kuamr Anand, Notary Public, Amritsar confirming his DOB as 19.1.1998, copy of Adhar Card attested by Satish Kumar Anand, Notary Public, Amritsar, copy of the death certificate of father of the complainant issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths and attested by Satish Kumar Anand, Notary Public, Amritsar; the applicant’s personal particular forms were sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran for obtaining Police Verification Report on 28.7.2014. Copy of birth certificate of complainant was referred to issuing authority for seeking its genuineness. The police authorities had sent a Clear Verification Report on 6.9.2014. As pr the clear  verification report of police authority, the passport bearing No.M-1757342 got printed on 8.9.2014 and the same was dispatched to the complainant on 10.9.2014. On 27.11.2014 a reply was  received from Additional District Registrar, Birth & Death Office at Civil surgeon, Tarn Taran vide their letter No.2013/1496 dated 24.9.2014 with the remarks that this birth certificate is not issued by their office. A letter was issued to the complainant on 28.11.2014 to explain his position with regard to fake birth certificate as confirmed by the issuing authority. The complainant did not reply to that letter and again a reminder was sent in this regard on 3.1.2015. The complainant visited the Passport Office alongwith his mother and submitted Passport in original and birth certificate with an affidavit dated 24.6.2014 of his mother Palwinder Kaur attested by Notary Public, Amritsar stating that birth certificate is genuine. This passport was cancelled and retained by the Passport Office. The applicant again visited the Passport Office, Amritsar on 23.1.2015 and submitted a letter dated 22.1.2015 from Additional District Registrar, Birth & Death Office at Civil surgeon, Tarn Taran vide No. 2013/78 with remarks that birth certificate is genuine. Since there was established contradiction between both the replies from the issuing authority. One reply was received through letter and other was submitted  by the applicant/ complainant hence under these circumstances, the case has been referred to the Chief Registrar, Birth and Death, Punjab, Chandigarh on 11.3.2015, to confirm the authenticity of the birth certificate. Again a reminder was sent to the Chief Registrar, Birth and Death, Punjab, Chandigarh  on 5.5.2015 and the case will be decided after receipt of the reply from Chief Registrar, Birth and Death, Punjab, Chandigarh. Since the passport authority has no agency to verify the genuineness, but as per the settled procedure and law the passport authority is to accept the Police Verification report sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran; the complainant has filed the present complaint without any cause of action. On merits,  the facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of passport Ex.C1, copy of letter dated 9.8.2014 Ex.C2, copy of list of documents Ex.C3, copy of birth certificate Ex.C4, copy of letter dated 22.1.2015 Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Krishan Kumar, Passport Officer Ex.OP1, copy of complete passport file of complainant and documents consisting of 23 pages Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.   

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant applied for issuance of passport with Opposite Party  and Opposite Party issued passport bearing No.M1757342 on 8.9.2014 valid upto 7.9.2024 in favour of the complainant. Photo copy of the passport is Ex.C1 on record. But  however, after few months thereafter, the Opposite Party  recalled the complainant on the ground that they have made an enquiry from the office of Additional District Registrar, Birth & Death Office at Civil surgeon, Tarn Taran vide their letter No.AS1067942004614 dated 9.8.2014 and they further allege that birth certificate supplied by the complainant to Opposite Party is fake. Copy of the letter is Ex.C2. Thereafter, the Opposite Party impounded the original passport of the complainant, affidavit and birth certificate on 16.1.2015. Copy of the letter dated 16.1.2015 and copy of birth certificate are Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 respectively on record. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and  requested for release of passport impounded by them. But however, the Opposite Party intimated that the  Additional District Registrar, Birth & Death Office at Civil surgeon, Tarn Taran vide letter dated 22.1.2015 have submitted the report to the effect that “this birth certificate is not issued by their office”.  Since there were two contradictory reports from Additional District Registrar, Birth & Death Office at Civil surgeon, Tarn Taran i.e. one produced by the complainant in the shape of birth certificate and the other intimated by Additional District Registrar, Birth & Death Office at Civil surgeon, Tarn Taran vide letter dated 22.1.2015, copy whereof is Ex.C5. Therefore, the Opposite Party referred the matter to Chief Registrar, Birth and Death, Punjab, Chandigarh on 11.3.2015, to confirm the authenticity of birth certificate of the complainant. Again Opposite Party issued reminder to Chief Registrar, Birth and Death, Punjab, Chandigarh  on 5.5.2015. Since no reply has been received by Opposite Party so far, from the office of Chief Registrar, Birth and Death, Punjab, Chandigarh, therefore, the matter has been pending disposal.

7.       Not only that, the complaint filed by the complainant is pre-mature, even the complainant has not arrayed Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and the Passport Officer, Amritsar as parties to the instant complaint, therefore, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In the absence of Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and the Passport Officer, Amritsar the controversy in dispute can not be finally adjudicated upon by this Forum.

8.       Moreover, issuing or impounding the passport is a matter relating to sovereign functions of Passport Authorities. Since the  Passport Office has performed the statutory functions, in such type of matters, the  complainant can not be termed to be a consumer. As such, no complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable. Reliance in this connection can be  placed upon Passport Office, Jalandhar –Appellant /opposite party Vs. Vikas Dugg S/o Paramjit Dugg r/o VPO Nussi District Jalandhar –Respondent/complainant First Appeal No. 2099 of 2010 decided by the Hon’ble State  Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh on 29.4.2014 wherein reliance was placed upon the judgement of  Ved Parkash Vs. Union of India (Original Petition No. 78 of 1995 decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 13.3.1996). In that case the grievance was put forward by the complainant  in respect of the 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. Similarly, in Regional Passport Officer  Vs. Santosh Chauhan (III(2006) CPJ 406) there was delay in issuing the passport and in the complaint the grievance was projected that the same amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Passport Officer. After discussing the case law on the subject, it was held by the Haryana State Commission  that the complainant  & First Appeal No. 679 of 2011 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. It has already been held by this Commission while deciding FA No.226 of 2010 (Regional Passport Officer and another Vs. Tarwinderjit Singh), vide order dated May 07,2014 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 contained in the Act. Ratio laid down in the judgements supra are fully applicable to the facts of the present case.  Since the complainant is not proved to be a ‘consumer’ nor the Opposite Party is  service provider under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora.

9.       From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before  this Forum. The complaint is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. As such, the instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 24.08.2016.             ile is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 24.08.2016.