DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C. C. No. : 54 of 2019
Date of Institution: 08.03.2019
Date of Decision : 03.12.2019
Gurpreet Singh Mangat s/o Karnail Singh Mangat r/o House No.B-VI/26, Talab Mohalla, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
...Complainant
Versus
1. Secretary Department of Home Affairs Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh 160017.
2. Regional Passport Officer, SCO No. 110, 2nd - 4th 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.
cc no.- 54 of 2019
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
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 re-issuance of passport with Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar, OP-2 and his application was registered with file no.AS1072770109018. He paid prescribed fees to Ops, the case of the complainant for re-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.248 dated 20.10.2016 u/s 341/323/336/506/148/149 IPC and under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act has been registered against the complainant in Police Station City, Faridkot. The police did not report the true facts as in case no.248, enquiry is still pending and challan has also not been presented before the Court. 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 re- 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
cc no.- 54 of 2019
of passport to the complainant. There is well settled law that mere registration of FIR does not make a person a convict until he is declared so by the court. The Ops have been wilfully, arbitrarily and 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 issuance of 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 13.03.2019, 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.248 dated 20.10.2016 was registered against complainant and others under Section 341/323/336/506/148/149 IPC and under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act at the instance of Baljit Singh and after completion of investigation proceedings, Police submitted charge sheet against complainant and others in concerned court. Challan under Section 173
cc no.- 54 of 2019
was prepared on 20.07.2017 and trial is yet to commence and as 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.248, complainant was arrested and was released on bail and till now, he is on regular bail and 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.248 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-3, but it did not receive back in this Forum undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been mislaid in transit. It is declared that OP-3 has been duly served but on date fixed, no body appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-3 either in person or through counsel, therefore, vide order dated 15.07.2019, OP-3 were proceeded against exparte.
cc no.- 54 of 2019
6 Notice issued to OP-2 stands duly served but despite several calls, it did not appear in the Forum on date fixed and therefore after long waiting till 4 O’ clock, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.
7 Meanwhile, during the proceedings of complaint a letter was received from OP-2 and OP-3 vide which both 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 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.
8 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-6 and then, closed evidence on behalf of the complainant.
9 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 and 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jastinder Singh 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.
cc no.- 54 of 2019
10 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record.
11 Ld Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant applied for re-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. 248 is registered against the complainant and case is still pending. In this report the Police have not reported the true facts that in said FIR No.248, enquiry is still pending and no challan has been presented by Police before the concerned court. 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.
12 To controvert, the arguments of the Counsel for the complainant, the counsel for the OP-1 and 4 argued that FIR No.248 dated 20.10.2016 was registered against complainant and others under Section 341/323/336/506/148/149 IPC and under Section 25/27/54/59
cc no.- 54 of 2019
Arms Act. Trial is yet to commence 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. All the other allegations are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint.
13 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 till today, no challan is presented by Police before Trial Court. Moreover, mere registration of criminal case against a person does 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. 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
cc no.- 54 of 2019
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 2016 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 2016 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.
14 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
cc no.- 54 of 2019
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
