Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/125

Sadhu Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary Department - Opp.Party(s)

Kulinder Singh Sekhon

13 May 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

                                                           C. C. No. :                125 of 2018

       Date of Institution:     30.07.2018

       Date of Decision :      13.05.2019

 

Sadhu Singh aged about 76 years s/o Arjan Singh r/o Village Gomti Khurd, Tehsil and District Faridkot.   

...Complainant

Versus

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

2.       Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar 143001.

3.       Union of India through Secretary Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi 110001.

4.       Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda

5.        Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot.

.....Opposite Parties (OPs)

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh  Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

cc no.- 125 of 2018

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

               Sh Satnam Singh Gill, Ld Counsel for OP-1, 4 & 5,

              Sh Ranbir Kaushal, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3.

 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 the passport to complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2                   Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that  complainant applied for reissue of passport with Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar, OP-2 and his application was registered with file no. 18-0006056812 dated 19.04.2018. He paid prescribed fees to Ops, the case of the complainant for issue of passport was proceeded by OP-2 and case was sent to police for verification, after verification the police has alleged in report to OP-2 that FIR no.130 dated 9.10.1993 u/s 448/427/148/149 IPC, FIR No.41dated 2.03.2013 under Section 448/364/ 323/ 148/ 149 IPC  and FIR No.26 dated 9.04.2013 under

cc no.- 125 of 2018

Sections 307/341/323148/149 IPC have been registered against the complainant. The police has not reported the true facts as in F.I.R No.130 dated 9.10.1993, complainant has already been acquitted by ld J.M.I.C, Bathinda vide judgment dated 16.02.2002. Pertaining to F.I.R No.41 and F.I.R. No.26 dated 2.03.2013 and 9.04.2013 respectively, it is submitted that after investigation, Police has discharged him in both the cases and no challan is presented by Police and complainant has not been summoned by them. It is submitted that no case is pending against complainant regarding which OP-2 has full notice and knowledge  but  OPs have wrongly denied the issuance of passport to complainant on false grounds. 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 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 without any reasonable cause have withheld the issue of passport of the complainant. It is fundamental right of the complainant provided by

cc no.- 125 of 2018

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.1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                                             The complainant was heard on the issue of admission and vide order dated 1.08.2018, the present complaint was admitted and notice  was ordered to be sent to the Ops.

4.                                                       On receipt of notice OP-1 and 5 appeared through Counsel and filed written statement wherein asserted that FIR No.26 dated 9.04.2013 was registered against complainant and others under Section 307/341/323/148/149 IPC at the instance of Gursharan Singh and during course of investigation, Police found that no such incident was ever happened, but said Gursharanjit Singh filed a private criminal complaint against

cc no.- 125 of 2018

complainant and others, which is still pending in the court of Ld SDJM, Jaitu. It is further averred that in FIR No.41 dated 2.03.2013 registered against complainant under section 364/323/148/149 IPC, complainant was found innocent and Police submitted charge sheet against other accused. Trial in said case is still pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. It is averred that FIR No.130 dated 9.10.1993 under Section 448/427/148/149 IPC was registered against complainant at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda and as per record of Police Station,  Jaitu, no information regarding acquittal of complainant vide judgment dated 16.02.2002 was ever given by complainant to local Police. It is further submitted that though during investigation complainant was found innocent in other two FIRs, but at the same time, in his report Police made it clear that report is pending and and same is yet to be approved by the Court of ld Ilaqua Magistrate, Faridkot and till the final approval, complainant is required before Law and therefore, Police narrated all the true and correct information to Passport Authority regarding it and there is no irregularity in  their report submitted by Police to Passport Authority.

 

cc no.- 125 of 2018

Moreover, grievance of complainant is against OP-2 which is at Amritsar and this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the matter. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                   OP-2 and OP-3 also filed reply wherein asserted that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as no cause of action arises against them and complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. It is admitted that complainant applied for passport facility in fresh category upon which case was granted on 24.04.2018 and as per rules, personal particulars form of complainant was sent to SSP, Faridkot for police verification report. Police verification report was received in which it was mentioned that FIR no.130 dated 9.10.1993 u/s 448/427/148/149 IPC has been registered against complainant at Police Station, City Bathinda, FIR No.41 dated 2.03.2013 under Section 448/364/ 323/ 148/ 149 IPC is registered against him at Police Station City, Faridkot and FIR No.26 dated 9.04.2013 under Sections 307/341/323148/149 IPC have been

cc no.- 125 of 2018

registered against the complainant at Police Station, District Faridkot. Complainant did not disclose about the registration of FIRs against him and on receipt of verification report from Police, a system generated show cause notice was issued to complainant requiring him to supply copy of court order judgment in respect of these FIRs and to explain why he has suppressed the material facts from them, but instead of furnishing the requisite judgment showing complainant innocent, complainant preferred to file complaint against them. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                       OP-4 also filed reply vide which they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that FIR No.130 dated 9.10.1993 was registered against complainant and it was found that complainant was acquitted in said case by the court of Ld Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda vide order dated 16.02.2002 and case FIR No. 41 dated 2.03.2013 under section 364/323/148/149 IPC was  registered against complainant in Faridkot and information regarding this was required to be sought

cc no.- 125 of 2018

SSP, Faridkot. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

7                                          Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed evidence on behalf of the complainant.

8                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld counsel for OP-1, 4 and 5 tendered in evidence, affidavit of  Kuldeep Singh, DSP,  Faridkot as Ex OP-1, 4 &5 /1 and documents Ex OP-1, 4, 5/2 to Ex OP-1, 4,5/9, and then, closed the evidence.  Ld counsel for OP-2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Munish Kumar ExOP-2, 3/1 and documents Ex OP-2, 3/2 to Ex OP-2, 3/6 and then also closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2 and 3.

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

 

cc no.- 125 of 2018

10                                             Ld Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant applied for issuance of passport with OP-2 and paid the prescribed fees. The copy of receipt regarding payment of fees is Ex C-3. OP-2 processed and sent his case to Police for verification and in Police Verification Report, wherein mentioned that FIR no.130 dated 9.10.1993 u/s 448/427/148/149 IPC, FIR No.41dated 2.03.2013 under Section 448/364/ 323/ 148/ 149 IPC  and FIR No.26 dated 9.04.2013 under Sections 307/341/323148/149 IPC have been registered against the complainant. The police has not reported the true facts as in F.I.R No.130 dated 9.10.1993, complainant has already been acquitted by ld J.M.I.C, Bathinda vide judgment dated 16.02.2002. Pertaining to F.I.R No.41 and F.I.R. No.26 dated 2.03.2013 and 9.04.2013 respectively, it is submitted that after investigation, Police has discharged him in both the cases and no challan is presented by Police and complainant has not been summoned by them. It is submitted that at present no case is pending against complainant regarding which OP-2 has full notice and knowledge but despite repeated requests, OPs have not issued passport to complainant and unnecessarily and illegally denied the

cc no.- 125 of 2018

issuance of passport to the complainant and this act of the Ops has caused great harassment to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

11                                                     To controvert, the arguments of the Counsel for the complainant, the counsel for the OP-1 and 4 and 5   argued that FIR No.26 dated 9.04.2013 was registered against complainant and during investigation, Police found that no such incident was ever happened. In  FIR No.41 dated 2.03.2013 registered against him under section 364/323/148/149 IPC, complainant was found innocent and Police submitted charge sheet against other accused. Trial in said case is still pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. In FIR No.130 dated 9.10.1993, complainant was acquitted vide  order dated 16.02.2002 issued by ld JMIC, Bathinda. Complainant was also found innocent in other two FIRs bearing no. 26 and 41, but at the same time, in his report Police made it clear that report is pending and same is yet to be approved by the Court of ld Ilaqua Magistrate, Faridkot and till the final approval, complainant is required before Law and  therefore, Police narrated

cc no.- 125 of 2018

true and correct information to Passport Authority regarding pendency of  said FIRs  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.

12                                 Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3 stressed that on receipt of application of complainant for issuance of Passport, they sent personal particulars form of complainant  to SSP, Faridkot for police verification report. Police verification report contained adverse remarks that FIR no.130 dated 9.10.1993 u/s 448/427/148/149 IPC has been registered against complainant at Police Station, City Bathinda, FIR No.41 dated 2.03.2013 under Section 448/364/ 323/ 148/ 149 IPC at Police Station City, Faridkot and FIR No.26 dated 9.04.2013 under Sections 307/341/323148/149 IPC have been registered against the complainant at Police Station, District Faridkot and cancellation report is pending and thus, on receipt of adverse Police Verification Report, show cause notice was issued to him to clarify regarding FIR. Instead of submitting any judgment or cancellation report to justify his position, complainant filed the

cc no.- 125 of 2018

present complaint on false grounds. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and 3  and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

13                                            We have heard both the counsel and also gone through the pleadings and evidence led by respective parties. The case of the complainant is that he had applied for the passport but the passport authorities denied to issue him passport on the ground of adverse police verification. It is found that in F.I.R No.130 dated 9.10.1993, complainant has already been acquitted by ld J.M.I.C, Bathinda vide judgment dated 16.02.2002. And  in regard to F.I.R No.41 and F.I.R. No.26 dated 2.03.2013 and 9.04.2013 respectively,  after investigation, Police has discharged him in both the cases and still no challan is presented by Police and complainant has not ever been summoned by them. No criminal case is pending against him. Moreover, OP-1 and 4 and  have already admitted in their version that complainant was not guilty in any case and in all FIRs registered against him, he was found innocent. Police cancelled the FIR and cancellation report is pending for approval by Illaqua

cc no.- 125 of 2018

Magistrate and till then complainant is required. It is observed that when complainant is found completely innocent in said case, then there is no need of his presence before Police. Even as per police verification report we find that no criminal case is pending against the complainant. Complainant has been found innocent and compromise has been effected between the parties and even no reason is found that why passport authorities are seeking clarifications regarding FIR No.41, 26 and 130 from 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

cc no.- 125 of 2018

sufficient reasons recognised by law. In this case, the criminal offence admittedly attributed relating to the incident of the year 2010 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 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.     

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

cc no.- 125 of 2018

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: 13.05.2019

          (Parampal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)  

                                Member                            President