JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainants applied for getting International Passport to the Passport Seva Kendra, Akash Tower, Eastern Bye Pass, Ruby, Anandapur, Kolkata vide their applications dated 01.06.2012 and 20.06.2012 respectively.  Having their file nos. CA2061416721012 and CA2061416745712 and each applicants deposited Rs.1,000/- each for prescribed fee and both of them were born prior to 26.01.1989 and both of them are semi-illiterates.  So, there was no proof of the date of birth and place.  So, they submitted affidavits sworn before the notary public, North 24 Parganas.

          Police verifications were completed on 25.06.2012 and 08.07.2012 respectively by the concerned Police Officer of the Airport Police Station and all documents were filed as asked for by the police authority.  But as yet neither the Passports nor any communications are received from the passport issuing authority even after lapse of more than 6 months.  So, complainants wanted to know the reasons of abnormal delay in issuing the passport vide a letter bearing No.D Roy/RTI/12 dated 10.12.2012 in their favour under RTI Act 2005 which was issued by their authorized Advocate Shri Debabrata Roy.

          The application under RTI Act 2005 was accompanied with required fee of Rs.10/- vide Demand Draft No.000243 dated 10.11.2012, but no reply was received within the prescribed period of 30 days, a reminder was issued to the Appellate Authority, vide their Advocate’s letter No. D Roy/RTI/14 dated 11.02.2013.  But the Regional Passport Officer denied.  The reply of the Regional Officer was appeared to be most ridiculous as the fee actually he paid through DD No.000243 dated 10.11.2012.  But the fact was therefore submitted to the Regional Passport Officer with their advocate’s letter with the request either to issue passport applied for or to furnish the information as asked for.  But the Regional Passport Officer denied issuing the replies against the queries and ultimately complainants sent demand notice.

          Moreover the police station officer’s behavior with them was very unmannerly and practically for some purpose they are not submitting the proper report etc.  So for negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the police officer and the Regional Passport officer cause of action arose in the month of November-2013 on the ground the Regional Passport Officer did not either issue any passport to the applicants or any reply against the RTI Act as prayed for in relation to passport applied for.

          In the result complainants have prayed for passing such necessary order so that complainant may get the passport applied for by the complainants as early as possible when there is no adverse police report and for harassment the compensation may be allowed.

          On the other hand op Passport Authority by filing written statement submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law and it is vexatious one and the present complaint does not come under the purview of C.P. Act 1986 and the report of the Home Department namely concern police station presume to be correct and conclusive and thus the department has nothing to do in this regard.  Fact remains complainant applied for international passport on 01.06.2012 and 20.06.2012 in fresh and normal category.  Subsequently Police Report was received by the department from Commissioner of Police, Bidhan Nagar on 24.07.2012 which does not recommend for issuance of passport and again initiated to Bidhan Nagar Commissionerate through on line for verification.

          The present complaint is not maintainable and the entire complaint should be dismissed.

                                                      Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the entire fact and circumstances, it appears that no doubt the passport authority is the wing of the Central Government under the Central Government Home Department and regarding issuance of passport is within the discretion of the Central Government and for the issue of the same certain rules and regulations are to be followed.  So, the passport authority has right to refuse the applications on valid ground.

          But considering the argument of the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant and also the conduct of the police station including the normal service of the passport authority it is no doubt the question to the public at large and truth is that though it may be denied by the police and passport authority, the doubts are everywhere that they are controlling everything and passport officers are not honest in all respect and they many times refuse the application of the citizen who have applied for passport and it is known to all that to get a passport even same are being filed on line basis or otherwise, same are handed by touts as middlemen in between the police officer and the applicants and passport office and applicants. 

          Particularly in West Bengal, the police stations who are being empowered to investigate the details of the applicants (who has applied for passport) are not honest and they always if otherwise not paid police stations always pass negative opinion for not granting passport and it is the common picture and that is the truth.  Each and every passport holders are aware of the fact and this is not the first time such an application as filed before this Forum.

          But fact remains the passport authority did not send any reply that is unfortunate.  At the same time police did not follow the rules and regulations of the passport at the time of enquiry.  Practically we have gathered that there is scent of corruption in both passport offices and police stations and in the present case no doubt the complainants are harassed by the police station and the passport office and that corruption has not been controlled by the Central Government and corruption still remains in the passport office and also in the police stations in respect of verification of persons who have applied for passport.  But none is here and there to control the same.  Though general public are being harassed by the passport office and police and in the present case no doubt complainants have been harassed by the police station and the passport office.  After considering the entire Passport Act including the rules and regulations, it is clear that the passport officer has authority to refuse a passport as authority when passport officer is guided by certain rules and regulations of the Central Government as issued time to time in relation to granting passport to the citizen of India or outsiders.

          Considering all provisions of law including the present C.P. Act and further considering the definition of consumer we have gathered that the present applicants for passport are not consumer as envisaged in the C.P. Act 1986 because an applicant of passport is not hiring the service for getting a passport and the duty of passport officer and the obligation of the passport officer does not form under the category of service as defined under C.P. Act 1986.  In respect of our findings we are relying upon one ruling reported in 1993 (2) CPR 619 (Kerala) SCDRC, Vaskaran Sures----- Vs – Regional Passport Officer and in view of the above fact complainants are not consumer of the Regional Passport office and the fees as paid is collection of fees for application and it is as per Passport Act and Passport Officers are always guided by the rules and regulations as envisaged in the said act and as per order of the Central Government and by depositing of Rs.1,000/- each by the applicants they have not hired the service.  But it is a mandatory provision for applying for passport and it is a fee.

          So in the light of the above observation, we are convinced to hold that the present complainants are not consumers.  But we have gathered that dishonest practices are here and there in the police station and in the passport office and they are not giving any public service though they are holding very high post of the Central Government.  It is very unfortunate and in the present case it is apparent that police station and the passport office for some obvious reasons are not answering questions as put by the complainants to the passport office or police station.  We feel that in future the Regional Passport Office in West Bengal and all the police stations shall be more honest in their daily duties as Government officers and employees.

          But at the same time we are sure that to control the same invariably higher authorities daily surveillance is highly required.  But higher authorities are also sleeping for which public at large are being harassed by the Regional Passport Offices and police stations.

          Though we are dismissing the complaint as same is not maintainable but we hope that in future the Regional Passport Offices of West Bengal shall have to maintain honesty and dignity in true sense in their service life by rejecting any sort of activities of touts either in their offices or in the police stations and they must have to show morality, human conscience and proper public service.  If same are not followed by the police station and passport offices then invariably people at large shall have to unit themselves against the passport offices raising the voice what is the utility of the police stations and passport offices if they are not honest and if they are not rendering public service properly.

          In the light of the above observation, the complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                                          ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost against the op the Regional Passport Office and same is dismissed against the I.C. Airport Police Station.

          But we are directing both the ops i.e. Airport Police Station and Passport Office to dispose of their applications showing their morality and honest approach so that in future such sort of complaint must not be made by the public at large before any other judicial or non-judicial institution.