BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 33

Date of Institution : 4.2.2010

Date of Decision : 4.5.2010

Nirmal Singh Sadhanwalia aged about 35 years son of Shri Sukhchain Singh, resident of Village Sadhanwala Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Regional Passport Officer, Sector 34-A, City Centre, Punjab, Chandigarh.

2. Govt. of India, Ministry of External Affairs, through its Secretary, New Delhi.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Smt. D.K. Khosa Member

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. A.S. Gondara counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Puran Singh Superintendent on behalf of opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for not issuing passport to him and for directing the opposite parties to issue passport to the complainant and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and inconvenience.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is an Indian citizen and his rights are protected by law of land. The complainant has applied for fresh passport through Sukhmani Suvidha Centre, Faridkot vide file No. CHD-Z-03257407, Group-Z. At the time of filling his form No. 21401 he filled all the columns correctly and nothing was left or misstated and at the time of receiving application form the dealing hand of the centre scrutinized the form and all the attached documents alongwith demand draft No. 815759 dated 23.8.2007 for Rs. 1000/- issued by State Bank of Patiala, Faridkot. On the application of complainant, District Police gave a wrong report regarding pendency of a criminal case against him whereas no such criminal case was pending against the complainant at that time. Opposite party No. 1 demanded copy of judgment of the concerned Court in which the complainant has been acquitted and he submitted the copy of the judgment dated 7.7.2006. But instead of issuing passport to the complainant opposite party No. 1 again sent a letter dated 13.2.2009 reiterating the same demand of submission of judgment of criminal case. The complainant has visited the office of the opposite party No. 1 in person and requested to issue the passport but to no effect. The opposite parties have indulged in unnecessary inter-department correspondence simply to harass the complainant. He is a media person who is doing audio video media production and is running a number of programmes at Door Darshan. Several non Government organization in America and Canada have invited the complainant to participate in cultural programme to be telecast in India but in absence of passport complainant is constrained to apply for visa. In order to avoid any unnecessary litigation he also served a number of reminders and legal notice upon the opposite parties but to no effect, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 5.2.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement by way of affidavit in which the opposite parties submitted that the passport is not commercial service and has wide ranging implications which make this different from Consumer Service. The issue of passport is based on legal requirements i.e. under both domestic and international law a person who travels abroad must hold a valid travel documents which is also a proof of his identity. No other consumer service has these legal implications attached to it and therefore, this should not be treated on par with consumer service. The Passport Officer has to ensure that considerations involving law and order, national security, sovereignty and integrity of India the friendly relations of India with other country are taken into account, among other similar factors before issuance of a passport. The issue of a passport therefore depends on the completion of the necessary formalities and the time in this regard varies from passport office to passport offices depending on the workload. In view of the above, neither has the Passport Act, 1967 laid down any fixed time limit for issue of a passport nor it is possible for any time schedule to be laid down in this regard. In view of the sensitive nature of passport issue and the mandatory requirements for holding a passport, it is clear that the passport cannot be treated as public utility unlike other utilities such as provisions of Telephones, Railways, Airlines travel etc. which provide a convenience of which the consumer can choose to avail or not. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in case Ved Parkash Versus Union of India and others had passed an order stating that dispute related to passport matters do not constitute a consumer dispute that can be validly entertained and adjudicated upon by this commission under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. In another case decided by Rajasthan State Commission it was held that when the Passport Officer entertains applications for grant of passport and receives Rs. 60/- as fee for making the application, he does not render any service to potential users, complainant was therefore not a consumer within the meaning of the term as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and no complaint based on deficiency in service for the non grant of passport or delay in refunding the fees realized is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In another order passed by State Commission, Haryana in case Regional Passport Officer Versus Virender Malhotra & Others it was held that the matter relating to non issue of passport do not constitute a Consumer dispute and is thus not to be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act. The case of the complainant was pending for want of Passport verification report from SSP, Faridkot. Initially SSP, Faridkot sent his passport verification report No. 2440/PVC dated 3.11.2007 in respect of complainant in which column No. 6 of the police verification report has been marked as Yes which shows that a warrant/summons for appearance or a warrant for the arrest for the complainant has been issued by the Court. In this regard, on receipt of certified copies of the acquittal orders from the complainant the matter was again taken up with the SSP, Faridkot who again sent the police verification report but it was without the rubber stamp of the signing authority which is mandatory. The matter was again taken up with SSP, Faridkot but no report has been received so far, even after reminders issued by this office. Now, on receipt of notice from the Forum the case has been re-examined and it was found that in 2^nd police verification report, SSP has cleared the column No. 6 of the same. It has been decided to ignore the receipt of police verification report with rubber stamp of the signing authority and passport was granted and was dispatched to the complainant by speed post. So, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of passport and same be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-16 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence authorization of Puran Singh Superintendent, Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh Ex.R-1, affidavit of Sh. Vitul Kumar, RPO, Chandigarh Ex.R-2, letter dated 3.5.2010 of Vitual Kumar RPO Ex.R-3 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and Sh. Puran Singh, Superintendent, RPO, Chandigarh and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has strenuously argued that though the passport has been issued to the complainant during the pendency of the instant complaint, however he has to suffer a lot on account of delay caused in issuance of the passport. This tantamounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, complainant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment, inconvenience at the hands of the opposite parties besides litigation expenses.

9. Sh. Puran Singh, Superintendent, RPO, Chandigarh has however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that admittedly pendency of a criminal case against the complainant was reported by the District police and as such the opposite parties sought fresh verification report on receiving certified copy of the judgment of acquittal from the complainant. In this way, no deficiency of service is there on their part. Therefore, complainant is not entitled for any compensation or litigation expenses.

10. We have considered the evidence on record and have found that in the identity verification report photocopy of which is brought on record by the opposite parties though un-exhibited it is mentioned at Sr. No. 6 as follows:

“Has a warrant of summons for appearance of or a warrant for the arrest of applicant been issued by the Court ?”

A note is appended at the bottom of this document as under:

“A case FIR No. 119 dated 4.12.2001 u/s 304-A, 279 IPC, PS Sdr, Faridkot registered against the applicant which is acquitted by Hon'ble Court on 7.7.06.”

A conjunctive reading of Sr. No. 6 alongwith the note would make it clear without doubt that the only impediment in the way of the complainant due to registration of the case FIR in question stood removed on production of certified copy by him as is available on the file as Ex.C-12. Opposite parties unnecessarily indulged in inter department correspondence and in this way, period of approximate 30 months was lapsed in issuing the passport on 27.2.2010 when the same was dispatched to him by speed post as is clear from document Ex.R-3. The opposite parties have tried to justified the delay in view of serious implications of issuance of passport in the absence of proper verification as also on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Forum in view of the rulings of Ved Parkash Versus Union of India and others and Regional Passport Officer Versus Virender Malhotra & others contending that passports matters do not constitute consumer dispute. It is also contended that ultimately opposite parties decided to ignore receipt of police verification report with rubber stamp of the signing authority which was found missing earlier and issued the passport. Both the contentions have been found to be without substance.

11. In similar circumstances as per A. Ignatious Julian Versus The Passport Officer reported in III (1994) CPJ-321, delay in issuing the passport is deficiency in providing services to the complainant. As per this authority Consumer Protection Act is applicable in respect of acts done under statutory provisions. So, the complaint is maintainable in the present form. In this judgment, ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in Luchnow Development Authority Versus Gupta III (1993) CPJ-7 SC has been relied upon. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above noted authority observed that:

“A Government or Semi-government body or a local authority is as much amenable to the Act as any other private body rendering similar service. Truly speaking it would be a service to the society if such bodies instead of claiming exclusion, subject themselves to the Act and let their acts and omissions scrutinized, as public accountability is necessary for healthy growth of society.

As per this authority the opposite party cannot take protection under Section 16 of the Passport Act as per General Clauses Act of 1897 Section 3(2). It is found mentioned in this authority that complainant applied for passport on 7.10.91 and opposite party has issued on 14.10.1993 after more than 2 years and 7 days. This is extraordinary and unconscionable delay. Instead of taking refuge under the immunity clause it would be better if the officials of the passport department act diligently and pass necessary orders on the application for passports within a period of 90 days. It is represented that the delay in issuing of passport is due to inadequacy of staff to process the ever increasing member of applications for passport. This authority suggested the Government of India that Government should take all necessary remedial measures so that people who are entitled to passports will be able to get the passports within 90 days. A copy of this judgment also have been forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi for information and necessary action.

From the perusal of the above noted authority it is made out that the authorities cited by the opposite party No. 1 are not helpful to them in any manner.

12. In regard to second contention, it is observed that receipt of fresh verification report could otherwise be ignored as has been done by the opposite parties if the matter would have been properly thrashed out in the light of the copy of the judgment already supplied by the complainant and the power of doing away with technical formalities had been exercised. However, opposite parties failed to process the matter within the stipulated time frame and ultimately caused harassment and inconvenience to the complainant for a long period of approximate 30 months for issuing the passport and in this way deficiency of service is writ large on the part of the opposite parties. So, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted.

Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and inconvenience and Rs. 2,000/- on account of litigation expenses, totaling Rs. 32,000/- to the complainant within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay the above noted amount of Rs. 32,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of this complaint till realization of the amount. In case no compliance is made out of this order the complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 4.5.2010

Member Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (D.K. Khosa) (Ashok Kumar)