BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No. 258 of 2014

Date of Instt. 4.8.2014

Date of Decision :11.12.2014

Kulwinder Kaur wife of Davinder Singh R/o Village Raipur PO Garhi Kanugoan under care of her father Gian Singh Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Regional Passport Officer Eminent Mall, 261, Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Main Model Town Road, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Navdeep Bhagat Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.DK Sharma Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant was married to Davinder Singh on 21.10.2012 who is residing in UK and is a citizen of UK. Complainant has got his passport from the opposite party on 4.12.2012 which is valid till 3.12.2022. The complainant got visa for England for 33 months from the British Embassy. The complainant went to England and lived there with her husband for five months. The husband of the complainant brought her back to India by telling her that they are to attend some marriage in India and they are to get treatment for complainant from a doctor in India, on 16.2.2014 complainant alongwith her husband landed at Delhi Airport and she was taken to a hotel. Immediately thereafter her husband went away saying that he is going for appointment with some doctor, but he went back to UK immediately alongwith passport of the complainant and all the money, he informed complainant while boarding on the plane for England. The husband of the complainant had filed a divorce petition against her in UK and in the petition, he mentioned the address of the complainant of UK, because he wants to get divorce by playing fraud with the complainant as the complainant can not visit UK without passport. Thereafter the complainant had got registered an FIR No.10 dated 21.5.2014 under section 420/406/120-B of IPC PS NRI Nawanshahr. The complainant had already mentioned in the FIR that her husband took away the passport and money belonging to the complainant. The complainant had applied for duplicate passport by depositing the fee at Suvidha Centre, Nawanshahr. The complainant has deposited the online fee to get a duplicate passport urgently at Nawanshahr. The complainant as per appointment met with the opposite party on 9.6.2014 at 9.45 AM. The opposite party through RPO verbally refused the complainant to issue duplicate passport. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to issue her duplicate passport immediately. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, complainant being not consumer, want of cause of action etc. It further pleaded that it is admitted by the complainant that she has filed FIR No.10 dated 21.5.2014 under section 420/406/120-B of IPC PS NRI Nawanshahr. In view of the pendency of the criminal case, the new passport could not be issued. There is presumption on the part of the complainant that her husband will not return her passport. She has not disclosed the nature of efforts made in this behalf. She has also not disclosed the passport number of her husband. Duplicate passport could not be issued for reason stated above. Passport can be issued on the clearance of the criminal case. It denied other material averments of the complaint.

3. In support of her complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed her evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW/1 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the present complainant does not disclose any consumer dispute. The issuance or non issuance of passport is a statutory duty and can not be challenged before Consumer Forum. The passport is issued in exercise of sovereign power in the public interest and the State is not providing any service to any person for consideration. In the Regional Passport Officer Vs Abdul Razak, Appeal No.269 of 2012 decided on 30.4.2014 by Hon'ble State Commission of Kerala it has been held as under:-

"The issuance and non issuance of passport is a statutory duty and hence can not be challenged before a consumer court. The state is not providing any service to any person for consideration. Passport is issued in exercise of sovereign power in the public interest. It is not meant to service any individual willing to pay. It is mean to further the policy of government in the matters of security, immigration etc and that is why Section 17 of the Passport Act makes it clear that at all time the passport remains the exclusive property of the Central Government. Hence the issue of passport is the official duty of the passport officer and does not fall within the category of public utility service. The complaint is devoid of merit".

7. Further in Passport Officer Vs. Raghbir Singh, First Appeal No.1085 of 2010 decided on 31.1.2014 by our own Hon'ble State Commission it has been held as under:-

"This commission in case "Regional Passport Officer, Jalandhar & Anr Vs. Tarwinderjit Singh", First Appeal No.226 of 2010, decided on 7.5.2013, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Ved Parkash Vs Union of India" Original Petition No.78 of 1995 decided on 13.3.1996 and "Regional Passport Officer Vs. Santosh Chauhan", III(2006) CPJ- 406 of the Hon'ble Haryana Sate Commission, held in para 7 (relevant portion) as follows:-

"It becomes very much clear from these two judgments that a person, either applying for the issuance of the passport or renewal thereof to the passport officer, does not fall within the definition of the consumer as contained in the Act. Therefore, the District Forum could not have entertained and decided the complaint. It committed an illegality while entertaining and deciding the complaint".

8. The same view was taken by Hon'ble National Commission in original petition No.78 of 1995 titled as Ved Prakash Vs. Union of India & Anr devided on 13.3.1996. It was held by Hon'ble National Commission as under:-

" We have gone through the records of the case and we are of the opinion that since the grievance put forward by the petitioner is in respect of the delay in renewal of a passport it does not constitute a consumer dispute that can be validly entertained and adjudicated upon by this Commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act".

9. The ratio of the above citied authorities applies in the present case. So in view of law laid down in the above cited authorities, we are of the view that the present complaint does not involve any consumer dispute and is dismissed as such with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

11.12.2014 Member President