Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/162

Sukhmander Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Passport Office - Opp.Party(s)

Rajneesh Garg

15 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       162

Date of Institution:   11.05.2017

Date of Decision :    15.09.2017

 

Sukhmaner Singh s/o Suba Singh r/o Village Pipli, District Faridkot.

 

...........Complainant

Versus

 

 

1.  Regional passport Officer, Amritsar SCO No.110, 2^nd – 4^th Floor, Raj Tower, District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar-143001 through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Passport Sewa Kendra, Amritsar SCO No.110, 2^nd – 4^th Floor, Raj Tower, District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar-143001 through its Authorized Signatory.

3  Senior Superintendent of Police,  Faridkot

............OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

     Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Manjit Singh Chhina, ld counsel for OP-1 and 2,

    Sh Joginder Singh HC on behalf of OP-3.

 

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

                                                                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to issue passport and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                                                 Briefly stated the case of complainant is that he applied before OP-1 and 2 for issuance of Passport and also paid the requisite fee to OPs and thereafter OP-1 and 2 sought police verification regarding complainant from OP-3, who provided wrong information that FIR No.83 dated 21.07.2014 is pending against complainant. It is submitted that false and wrong case was registered against complainant and after thorough enquiry, Police found that complainant was not guilty in any offence and it was a false case. It was the duty of OP-3 to cancel the said case filed against complainant, but they did not cancel the same and wrongly sent false information regarding complainant to OP-1 and 2 regarding this fact. Complainant was shocked to receive the letter dt 20.04.2017 from OP-1 and 2 There is no fault on the part of complainant but he is facing consequences of negligence of OP-3. Complainant approached OP-1 and 2 and made several requests to issue his passport, but they every time lingered on the matter saying it would be issued within few days. Several requests made complainant bore no fruit and he has to suffer humiliation and harassment due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused mental agony to him. He has prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/-for harassment and mental agony alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                      The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 15.05.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.

4                                                         In reply, OP-1 and 2 averred before the Forum that  complaint is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Complaint is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties as complainant has not made Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and Passport Officer, Amritsar as party to complaint and as per section 79 of CPC, Union of India is necessary party in the present complaint. it is averred that complaint is without cause of action and answering Ops is  doing its statutory duty of Government of India as per rules and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and is not their consumer. It is further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint  and even complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum that he has applied for issuance of passport in fresh category on 27.03.2017 and on 31.03.2017 during scrutiny of case, it was found that complainant is already having a passport which he did not disclose. Explanation regarding this was sought from complainant and he submitted FIR of Passport No. A1052457 issued from RPO, Chandigarh. On 31.03.2017, penalty of Rs.2000/-was imposed on complainant for not disclosing the old passport, which he paid and on same day, form containing particulars of complainant was sent to SSP, Faridkot for obtaining Police Verification Report and report dt20.04.2017 received from them contained adverse remarks that cancellation regarding FIR no.83 dt 21.07.2014 is still pending. On 20.04.2017, show cause notice was issued to complainant for providing copy of court decision with explanation., but complainant neither replied to notice dt 20.04.2017 not furnished the copy of judgment and therefore, his case was closed with advice to apply in Re-Issue Category by giving correct particulars and as and             when, complainant filed afresh application for issuance of passport, his case will be considered as per rules. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                     Op-3 also filed reply wherein denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. OP-3 brought before the Forum that in FIR no.83, on investigation complainant alongwith other accused Suba Singh and Darshan Singh was found innocent and it was declared that FIR was registered falsely and complainant was innocent in that case and therefore it was recommended to cancel the FIR and accordingly on 4.10.2014, cancellation report was drawn up and approved by SSP, Faridkot on 12.09.2015 and this report is yet to be accepted by Ld Ilaqa Magistrate and only after acceptance by Ilaqa Magistrate, FIR would be cancelled and till then, it is pending against the complainant.  It is further averred that Police Department submitted a true and correct report regarding complainant to the Passport Authority and complainant has filed a false complaint against them. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-3 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Krishan Kumar, Passport Officer as Ex OP-1,2/1 and document Ex OP-1,2/2 and then, closed the evidence. OP-3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jastinder Singh Dhaliwal  as Ex OP-3/1 and closed the same on behalf of OP-3.

8                                                                  We have heard the arguments and also gone through the pleadings and evidence by all the parties. The case of the complainant is that he had applied for the passport but the passport authorities denied to issue passport him on the ground of adverse police verification. It is found that  a criminal cases was pending against him whereas he pleaded that there is no criminal case, which is pending against him. The Ops put reliance for not issuing the passport to the complainant on police verification report wherein it is clearly mentioned that case was pending against him. We examined the police verification report in it, there is mention regarding a FIR no.83 dated 21.07.2014 which is registered against complainant.  It is admitted by all the Ops that in FIR no.83 dated 21.07.2014, during investigation complainant alongwith one Suba Singh and Darshan Singh was found not guilty and was declared as innocent. Moreover, it is also admitted by OP-3 through their affidavit Ex OP-3/1 that  FIR was registered falsely against complainant and during enquiry, he was not found guilty and complainant was declared innocent in that case and therefore it was recommended to cancel the FIR and accordingly on 4.10.2014, cancellation report was drawn up and approved by SSP, Faridkot on 12.09.2015 and this report is yet to be accepted by Ld Ilaqa Magistrate and only after acceptance by Ilaqa Magistrate, FIR would be cancelled and till then, it is pending against the complainant. As per Ops, the cancellation report is not approved and is still pending for the approval of the Court and Court can summon the complainant at any stage.  Plea taken by Ops by mere stating that the case is still pending before the Court and there is possibility that the Court can summon the complainant in this case has no reason to declare him as accused and for recommending not to issue him passport. As discussed, as per police report verification we found there is no criminal case is pending against the complainant due to which the police recommended the passport authority to not to issue the passport to the complainant and no reason is found that why the passport authorities closed the passport file of the complainant. The Counsel for the complainant put reliance on the order passed by our Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP no.13863 of 2014 ( O & M) titled as Kulwant Rai Kataria Vs Verification officer, Regional Passport office, Amritsar and others in it our Hon’ble Lordship observed that Right to travel is important ingredient of freedom of movement and the restriction has to be by law for appropriate reasons. The Passport Act contains the provisions that regulates a person, who is guilty of a criminal offence, from obtaining a passport and the issue will stand therefore regulated by the means mentioned under the Passport Act. While no person can claim that he has absolute right of freedom to travel, the fetter has to be made on sufficient reasons recognized by law. In this case, the criminal offence admittedly attributed relating to the incident of the year 2010 and even the investigation is not complete. It is not as if the case is pending trial and is coming anywhere close to its conclusion. Incidents of the year 2010 and 2011 are lingering. When there have been initially reports for cancellation of the complaint, that itself be a justification to secure the passport without any objection. The issuance of a passport will still be subject to the control of Court about the document could be put to use and the Magistrate will be within his competence to issue appropriate direction about the conditions that could be imposed for travel outside India. The State is therefore directed to give appropriate recommendations in the light of the directions issued by this Court that make liable the Passport office to issue the passport.

9                                                We are fully convinced with the evidence, arguments and case law produced by the Counsel for the complainant. The complainant succeeds in proving this case, so the present complaint in hand is allowed. The Ops are ordered to issue passport to complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order after fulfill other formalities by complainant for issuance of the passport. The complainant is also directed to fulfill and deposit all other documents which is required to the Ops for issuing the passport. Ops are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned

to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 15.09.2017        

Member                         President

(P Singla)                       (Ajit Aggarwal)