Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/113

Ravneet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary Department of Home Affairs Punjab and civil Secretariat - Opp.Party(s)

Amaninder Singh Sekhon

03 Dec 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

                                                      C. C. No. :                     113 of 2019

   Date of Institution:         26.04.2019

   Date of Decision :          03.12.2019

 

Ravneet Singh aged about 23 years s/o Rajinder Singh r/o Village Gondara, Tehsil Jaitu and District Faridkot.   

...Complainant

Versus

1.       Secretary Department of Home Affairs, Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh 160017.

2.       Regional Passport Officer, SCO No. 110, 2^nd - 4^th Floor, Raj Tower District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. 143001.

3.       Union of India through Secretary Ministry of External Affairs, Jawahar Lal Nehru Bhawan, 23-D, Janpath, New Delhi 110001.

4.       Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot 151203.

.....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh  Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

 

Present:  Sh Amrinder Singh Sekhon, Ld Counsel for complainant,

               Sh Satnam Singh Gill, Ld Counsel for OP-1 & 4

               OP-2 and OP-3 Ex parte.

 

 ORDER            

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

cc no.- 113 of 2019

                                                   Complainant has filed the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs seeking directions to them to issue passport to complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

2                                                         Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that  complainant applied for issuance of passport with Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar, OP-2 and his application was registered with file no.AS1062107809418.  He paid prescribed fees to Ops, the case of the complainant for issuance of passport was processed by OP-2 and case was sent to Police for verification, but after verification Police allegedly reported to OP-2 that FIR no.86 dated 13.08.2014  u/s 457/ 380/411/34 IPC has been registered against the complainant in Police Station Bajakhana. The police did not report the true facts as in case no.86, after investigation, complainant was declared innocent and his name was arrayed in column no.2. It is submitted that no case is pending against complainant regarding which OP-2 has full notice and knowledge but OP-2  has been still issuing letters for seeking unnecessary clarifications. The complainant made several visits to the office of the opposite parties for issuance of his passport but the matter is kept pending under one pretext or the other. The Ops have unnecessarily and illegally denied the issuance of passport to the complainant. There is well settled law that mere registration of FIR does not make a person as a convict until he is declared so by the court. The Ops have been wilfully, arbitrarily and

cc no.- 113 of 2019

without any reasonable cause have withheld the issue of passport of the complainant. It is fundamental right of the complainant provided by the constitution to get the passport issued and the Ops have no right to withhold issuing the passport illegally and arbitrarily and have no right to infringe the fundamental right of complainant. The act and conduct of the Ops has resulted in great mental tension, agony, inconvenience and harassment to the complainant. He has prayed for accepting the complaint and Ops may be directed to issue passport to the complainant and also for the compensation of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                                             The complainant was heard on the issue of admission and vide order dated 01.05.2019, the present complaint was admitted and notice  was ordered to be sent to the Ops.

4.                                                       On receipt of notice OP-1 and 4 appeared through Counsel and filed written statement wherein asserted that FIR No.86 dated 13.08.2014 was registered against complainant and others under Section 457/380 IPC at the instance of Jaspreet Kaur and after completion of investigation proceedings, Police submitted challan against Rajinder Singh and Suchetpal Kaur and put the name of remaining accused Ravneet Singh and Rashneet Singh in column no. 2. During trial in Trial Court, complainant was summoned to face trial vide order dated 3.08.2018. Trial is fixed, but till now complainant has not appeared before concerned court for trial and thus, he has no cause of action to file the

cc no.- 113 of 2019

present complaint and he has concealed this fact from this Forum. Trial is still pending and till the completion of trial before Ld Court, presence of accused is necessary before the ld court and thus, passport cannot be recommended to be issued to him. It is averred that in FIR No.86, till the conclusion of case, complainant is required before Law and therefore, Police narrated all the true and correct information to Passport Authority regarding pendency of  FIR  No.86 filed against complainant and there is no irregularity in report submitted by Police to Passport Authority. Moreover, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and answering OP and even present dispute is mainly between complainant and OP-2 and he has not sought any relief from answering OPs. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                    Registered cover containing notice and copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-2 and OP-3, but it did not receive back in this Forum undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been mislaid in transit. It is declared that OP-2 and OP-3 have been duly served but on date fixed, no body appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-2 and OP-3 either in person or through counsel, therefore, vide order dated 25.09.2019,  both OP-2 and OP-3 were proceeded against exparte. However, letter was received from OP-2 and 3 vide which OP-2 and 3 Union of India have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that Passport is not an item which can be

cc no.- 113 of 2019

purchased or sold but it is a Sovereign function and thus, Passport Offices do not fall within the purview of service provider and this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. As per OP-2 and 3, complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

6                                     Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, and then, closed evidence on behalf of the complainant.

7                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 and 4 tendered in evidence written statement filed by them as Ex OP-1, 4/1 and document Ex OP-1,4/2 and then also closed the evidence on behalf of OP-1 and 4.

8                                                    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record.

9                                               Ld Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant applied for issuance of passport with OP-2 and paid the prescribed fees. OP-2 processed and sent his case to Police for verification and in Police Verification Report, it is mentioned that FIR No. 86 is registered against the complainant and case is still  pending. In

cc no.- 113 of 2019

this report the Police have not reported the true facts that in said FIR No.86, after investigation, Police declared the complainant innocent and put his name in column no.2 of said F.I.R. It is submitted that at present no case is pending against complainant regarding which OP-2 has full notice and knowledge but OP-2 has been still issued letters to complainant for unnecessary clarifications. Despite repeated requests, OPs have not issued passport to complainant and unnecessarily and illegally denied the issuance of passport to the complainant and this act of the Ops has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

10                                  To controvert, the arguments of the Counsel for the complainant, the counsel for the OP-1 and 4  argued that FIR No.86 dated 13.08.2014 was registered against complainant and others  under Section 457/380 IPC. Challan against other accused was submitted, but name of complainant was put in column no.2 of FIR. Trial is yet to complete and presence of complainant is mandatory before ld court. Till the completion of trial, complainant is required before Law and therefore, Police narrated true and correct information to Passport Authority regarding pendency of  said FIR  registered against him and there is no irregularity in report submitted by Police to Passport Authority. Other allegations are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

cc no.- 113 of 2019

11                                 We have heard ld both the counsel and have also gone through the pleadings and evidence led by respective parties. The case of the complainant is that he had applied for passport but the passport authorities denied to issue him passport on the ground of adverse police verification. It is found that enquiry proceedings in said FIR against complainant are still pending and name of complainant was put in column no.2 of FIR as after investigation by Police, he was declared innocent. It is submitted that OPs can not make him a convict and OPs cannot debar the complainant from getting issued the passport and Passport Authorities are required to issue passport to 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 recognised by law. In this case, the criminal offence admittedly attributed relating to the incident of the year 2014 and even the investigation is not complete. It is not as if the case is

cc no.- 113 of 2019

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.    

12                                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 date of receipt of copy of this order. Ops are directed to comply with the order within prescribed period 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: 03.12.2019

                    (Parampal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)  

                                          Member                            President