Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/120

Sukhjinder 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. :                     120 of 2018

   Date of Institution:         17.07.2018

   Date of Decision :          13.05.2019

 

Sukhjinder Singh Mangat s/o Gurpreet Singh r/o House No.B-VI/29, Mohalla Talab, Faridkot 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 Supdt. of Police, Faridkot 151203.

.....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.- 120 of 2018

 

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

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

              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.80,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

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.AS1071368598217.  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.248 dated 20.10.2016 u/s 323, 341, 336, 506, 148, 149 IPC has been registered against the

cc no.- 120 of 2018

complainant. The police has not reported the true facts as in case no.248 enquiry is still pending and till today, no challan has been presented by Police against the complainant. It is submitted that no case is pending against complainant regarding which OP-2 has full notice and knowledge but OP-2  still issued the letter for 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 unnecessarily and illegally denied the issue 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 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 18.07.2018, 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 initially FIR No.248 dated 20.10.2016 was registered against complainant and others under Section 341 /323 / 336/ 506/148 /149 IPC at the instance of Baljit Singh and during course of investigation, Police got recorded statements of all accused alongwith others  and on the basis of which charge sheet was  prepared and challan u/s 173 was  prepared on 20.07.2017. Trial in this case is yet to commence and 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 challan is ready to be presented before ld ld Ilaqua Magistrate, Faridkot and till thus, till the conclusion of case, complainant is required before Law and therefore, Police narrated all the true and correct information to Passport Authority regarding

cc no.- 120 of 2018

pendency of criminal case FIR  No. 248 filed against complainant and there is no irregularity in report submitted by Police to Passport Authority. 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 re-issue category upon which cause was granted on Pre PVR basis and on 12.08.2017, 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.248 dated 20.10.2016 under Sections 323/341/336/506/148/149 of IPC and under sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was registered against complainant at Police Station, City Faridkot, which is still  pending and accordingly, on receipt of adverse Police Verification Report, show cause notice was

cc no.- 120 of 2018

issued to complainant to clarify regarding FIR. Complainant did not submit any judgment or any cancellation report to justify his position, rather filed the present complaint on false and frivolous allegations. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                     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-12 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, affidavit of  Jastinder Singh, DSP,  Faridkot as Ex OP-1, 4/1 and document Ex OP-1, 4/2  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, 3/5 and then also closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2 and 3.

 

cc no.- 120 of 2018

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. The copy of receipt regarding payment of fees is Ex C-2. 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, Police did not present the challan  and no case is pending against complainant. It is submitted that at present no case is pending against complainant regarding which OP-2 has full notice and knowledge but OP-2 still issued letter dated 4.09.2017  Ex C-4 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 to complainant. He has prayed for

cc no.- 120 of 2018

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.248 dated 20.10.2016 was registered against complainant under Section 323/341/336/506/148/149 IPC. Enquiry in said FIR No.248, challan is ready to be presented before Ilaqa Magistrate and 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. Other allegations are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

11                                 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

cc no.- 120 of 2018

remarks that FIR No.248 dated 20.10.2016 under Sections 323 /341 / 336 /506 /148/149 of IPC and under sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was registered against complainant at Police Station, City Faridkot and which is still 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 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.

12                                            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 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

 

cc no.- 120 of 2018

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 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

 

cc no.- 120 of 2018

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.    

13                                                      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

 

cc no.- 120 of 2018

 

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