This case is coming for final hearing on 29.09.2014 in the presence of Sri N.V.N.Raju Advocate for the Complainant and of Smt.D.V.Lakshmi Arrbolu Advocate & Central Government Standing Counsel for Opposite Party and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on

behalf of the Bench)

1.     The case of the Complainant is that he applied for renewal of passport with details on 10.03.2008 bearing No.A3033271, which was originally issued on 27.03.1998 and submitted to the Opposite party by paying necessary fees of Rs.1,000/- as per the rules and the same was realized by the Opposite party.  The Opposite party accepted the said application and opened a file with File Reference No.VSP-E 0022122-08 after doing detailed entry and data checking the opposite party processed the complainant’s application up to the stage of police verification, basing on the identity card issued by BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circle with regard to the employment which was submitted along with on 10.03.2008.  The Opposite party had not raised any objection up to this stage indicating that there are no irregularities in the original application.  After eight months of submitting the application, there has been no reply from the opposite party and the complainant and his father made enquiries about the status of application orally, then, the opposite party intimated that the application has been sent for police verification.  After pursuance of the office of the Police Commissioner it was informed that the Verification Report was done and was sent back to the opposite party as early as on 29.05.2008 itself vide C.No.4732.  There upon the Complainant approached the Opposite party and gave information of police verification in writing upon which the opposite party noted it and told the complainant to give the same in the counter situated in the ground floor and accordingly, he had submitted a letter on 10.10.2008 and there was no response from the Opposite party even after 45 days.  Then, again the complainant wrote a registered letter on 25.11.2008 and again reminded about it on 08.05.2009.  The Complainant also made status enquiry through an e-mail on 27.12.2008, but there was no response from the Opposite party for the said e-mail.  The Complainant with a fond hope sent a telegram on 27.04.2009 also mentioning that he is missing the good chances and opportunities for getting a job out of India.  But there was no response.  The Complainant issued a registered lawyer’s notice on 01.07.2009 by stating that his efforts to get his renewal passport for which there was no response from the Opposite party.

2.     The Complainant stated that his father sought information on 07.11.2009 from the Opposite party under RTI Act seeking information about the number of days to renewal the original passport of his son and to furnish reasons for not renewing the passport.  But the Opposite party rejected the above requests through RTI Act by stating that “Personal Information cannot be provided to third party”.  Again under RTI Act, the Complainant made further efforts to know the reasons fro the delay for renewal of passport on 08.12.2009 and it is reported by the Opposite party that “Renewal of Passport will take 18 days normally subjected to the previous index reference and availability of clear police report of the previous file”.

3.     The Complainant stated that if there were any discrepancies in previous reference and police report, the complainant might have been informed by the Opposite party in reply to any one of the correspondences.  There was no action taken by the opposite party between 19.03.2008 to 8.11.2009 even after making all correspondences by the Complainant.  The Opposite party stated that that, the Complainant was requested on 14.05.2009 to furnish Personal Particular Forms for enquiry, but the complainant has not received any such request from opposite party. The opposite party also alleged that the complainant suppressed his being in government service and furnished wrong residential address and infact the complainant furnished all necessary information given in his personal ID card submitted on 10.03.2008, confirming his present address and department in which he was working as on that date, which were taken cognizance of by the opposite party’s for correspondence with other departments.  The Vellore Police had informed that they already verified at Vellore and sent their report to the opposite party on 31.08.2009 vide Chennai No.E/2.122/08, Vellore No.D1/OD.75/09, Vellore South Police Station No.186.  The Complainant furnished that he is working in BSNL which is a Central Government Enterprises and obtained No Objection Certificate before applying for renewal of his passport.  The Opposite party without clarifying about any doubts on their part had chosen to impose penalty of Rs.7,500/- without establishing any guilt of the complainant and no fault of the complainant.  The reasons for calling for fresh Personal Particular Forms in November, 2009 is not known to complainant as it was not intimated to the complainant even after the PVRs from Visakhapatnam and Tamil Nadu were already sent to the opposite party and the complainant was in confusion whether to give the information of March 2008 or latest and however submitted information of March 2008 to stick on to the original information to the extent he remembered after 20 months more. The Opposite party sent the PPFs to Visakhapatnam police knowing fully well that the Complainant is working in Vellore, Tamil Nadu at that time and took action, based on the report of Visakhapatnam Police.  The Opposite party without renewing the passport of the complainant made a complaint against the complainant to his superiors seeking that action be taken against the complainant by stating that Column 10 of Passport Booklet was with false statement and suppressed his residential address.  In that letter the Opposite party had clearly given the residential address, the department in which the complainant is working proving that the opposite party’s allegations are wrong and that the Opposite party knows that the Complainant is residing at Vellore. 

4.     The Complainant stated that he did not suppressed any information about his employment as alleged and however he had enclosed his ID card at the time of application and after that the complainant came to know through his well wisher who informed him that there are instructions in website, requesting the complainant to come and meet PRO/Superintendent Office of the Opposite party.  The Complainant did not know that the instructions will we be in the website and he was anxiously expecting a written reply from the Opposite party.  In pursuance of the website message of the Opposite party, the Complainant came all the way from Vellore to Visakhapatnam to attend office of the Opposite party on 06.07.2010 personally as per their message, but nobody attended to the complainant, but some person advised the complainant to close his application and make a fresh application in Chennai.  This advise is after two years and four months from the date of application.  The Complainant saw again a message in website on 29.07.2010 that “application has been closed. Please re-apply quoting earlier file number or contact PRO”.  However, the Complainant submitted a fresh application with the Opposite party on 21.10.2010, to deal with it in his old file No.E-002122 and the same was acknowledged by the Opposite party on 28.10.2010.  The Opposite party sent again another message stating that “file reference number (VSP-E-002122/08) is either wrong or information not available” upon which the complainant issued a registered letter on 24.12.2010 stating that the file number cannot be wrong as lot of correspondence had taken place with reference to the said file number for the last three year previously as it is indelible and the same was received by the Opposite party on 24.12.2010.  But the application was returned by the opposite party with some vogue objections and on 11.02.2011 the complainant sent application form by registered post through his Special Power of Attorney holder i.e., his father by complying the objections but again the application was returned with vagueness, then the complainant’s father want to submit that personally and went to the office of the Opposite party on 15.03.2011 and waited for more time to meet Assistant Passport Officer but in vain.  These acts of the Opposite party clearly shows the deleterious and irresponsible manner of the Opposite party in dealing with the issue, leading to deficiency of service towards the complainant, by not renewing his passport  inspite of collecting the required and prescribed fees from him, till today and caused mental agony and hardship and financial loss.  Consequently, the Complainant issued a legal notice on 03.06.2011 to the opposite party and the same was received but there was no positive response.  Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite party:

a) to renew/re-issue the passport of the complainant

b) to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation besides costs.

5.     On the otherhand, the Opposite party filed its counter denying all the allegations mentioned in the complaint and admitted about that on 10-03-2008 the complainant applied for the renewal of his passport by paying necessary fees and the opposite party opened a file with reference No.VSP-E-002122-08 and pleaded that infact, processing the complainant’s application does not mean that the Opposite party has not raised any objection.  In the Passport application/Personal Particulars Form the complainant mentioned at column No.8(a) and 8(b) that as on 10.03.2008 the complainant was residing at Dr.No.55-14-86, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.  It is submitted that on 02.09.2009 the Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Tamilnadu intimated that the Complainant is an employee of BSNL, Vellore and in column NO.9-Current Residential Address for less than one year, please furnish other addresses during the last one year.  The Complainant mentioned that from 01.07.2007 to 01.03.2008 he was residing at Room No.110, Balaram Residency, Tennamarra Street, Vellore, Tamilnadu. In the Passport Application at column No.13 are you working in Central Government/State Government /P.S.U/Statutory Bodies (Yes/No).  In ‘Yes’ identity Certificate (as per annexure ”B” of “Passport Information Booklet” .  The Complainant made a round and suppressed about his Government Employment and further failed to submit No Objection Certificate from the employer.  The application was forwarded to the police on 11.03.2008 and on 30.11.2009 the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam made a verification and reported that the complainant is not residing in the given address and presently residing and working at Vellore, Tamilnadu since July, 2007 till date and a copy of the said report bearing C.No.561/Pass/2009 dated 30.11.2009. 

6.     The Opposite party further stated that on receipt of report from Visakhapatnam Police and Tamilnadu Police, this Opposite party came to know that the Complainant suppressed his residential address and Government Employment as on 10.03.2008 i.e., date of application.  This opposite party will not have jurisdiction to entertain the renewal application of Passport when a party is residing at Vellore, Tamilnadu.  The Opposite party admitted about the issuance of lawyer’s notice on 01.07.2009 and the information sought by the complainant on 07.11.2009 from the opposite party under RTI Act and the opposite party rejected the application by applying the relevant rules only.  The Opposite party also admitted about the website message to attend and meet their staff on any working day and also admitted about the message regarding the close of application and also admitted about the submission of application by the complainant on 21.10.2010. 

7.     The Opposite party pleaded that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint as there is no consumer dispute or any deficiency in service in respect of the subject matter and this Opposite party will not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, hence the complainant is not entitled for renewal of Passport and payment of compensation.  As per Honourable Apex Court of India that Payment of Tax, Direct or Indirect is not consideration for service rendered by the Government and the Complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.  Hence this complaint is to be dismissed. 

8.     At the time of enquiry, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit along with documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A44 and the complainant also filed written arguments with petition which was allowed.  On the other hand, the opposite party filed its counter and evidence affidavit and Ex.B1 is marked.  Both the counsels were heard who reiterated their versions.

9.     In view of the respective contentions, the points that would arise for determination are:-

1)     Whether the complaint is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act?

2)     Whether there is any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite party and if so can the complainant can claim the compensation and other reliefs?

10.    Point No.1:       It is pleaded on behalf of the opposite party that the complaint is not maintainable as the Opposite party cannot be said to have hired the services for consideration and which has been performing the statutory and other Passport Act, hence the complaint is not maintainable. 

        This argument is no longer available in view of the latest judgment of Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K.Gupta Where the learned judges have held that the word service has variety of meanings.  It may mean any benefit or any act resulting in promoting interest or happiness.  It may be contractual, professional, public, domestic, legal statutory etc.  It would be a service to the society if such bodies instead of claiming exclusion, subject themselves to the Act and let their acts and omissions scrutinized, as public accountability is necessary for healthy growth of society.  Hence, we are of the view that the Consumer Protection Act is applicable even in response of acts done under Statutory Provisions like the Passport Act. 

Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.

11.    Point No.2:       Admittedly as per Ex.A1 dated 10.03.2008 that the complainant applied for renewal of Passport.  Ex.A2 is the Complainant’s ID card dated 09.08.2007 which was issued by BSNL at Vellore, Tamilnadu.  Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A5 & Ex.A6 are the correspondences made by the Complainant to Opposite party and Ex.A7 is the Postal Acknowledgment of Ex.A6.  Ex.A8 is the Lawyer’s Notice issued by the Complainant on 01.07.2009.  Ex.A9 is the application under RTI Act on 07.11.2009.  Ex.A.10 is the Postal Acknowledgment of Ex.A.9.  These correspondences clearly shows that the complainant continuously pursuing the opposite party regarding his renewal of his passport. Ex.A11 is the letter dated 15.11.2009 issued by the Opposite party stating that in accordance with Right to Information Act Chapter-2(8)(i) Personal Information cannot be provided to the 3^rd party.  Ex.A12 is another RTI Application dated 08.12.2009 by the complainant to the Opposite party regarding the information of renewal of his passport.  Ex.A13 is the postal acknowledgment.  Ex.A14 is the reply dated 08.01.2010 by opposite party to the complainant under Ex.A12 i.e., application under RTI Act.  Wherein, they mentioned that on 14.05.2009 applicant was requested to furnish Personal Particular Forms for re-enquiry which have not been received and the same was informed over phone on 15.11.2009 and also regarding suppression of residential address and employment etc.  Ex.A15 is the letter dated 27.01.2010 by the Opposite party to the officials of the complainant regarding the non-settlement of No Objection Certificate and to take necessary actions.  Ex.A16 is the Complainant’s explanation to Opposite party.  Ex.A17 is the postal acknowledgment of Ex.A16.  Ex.A18 is the Intimation through website to the complainant asking him to attend their office.  Ex.A19 is the registered Letter dated 17.06.2010  issued by the Complainant to the Opposite party informed his willingness to attend the Opposite party’s office after 15^th July 2010.  Ex.A20 is the postal acknowledgment of Ex.A19.  Ex.A21 is the letter dated 12.07.2010 issued by the Complainant to the Opposite party on 12.07.2010 requesting to make correspondence by the Opposite party only in writing instead of posting in website and also about the visit to the office of opposite party according to their letter, but there was no proper guidance to the complainant.  Ex.A22 is the acknowledgment for Ex.A21.  Ex.A23 is the Intimation through website by the Opposite party to the complainant asking him to re-apply, as application has been closed and also mentioned to quote earlier file number or contact PRO.  Ex.A24 is the re-application for renewal by Complainant to opposite party on 21.10.2010 by submitting necessary documents.  Ex.A25 is the postal acknowledgment of Ex.A24.  Ex.A26 is the intimation through website of Opposite party to the complainant stating that “application has been closed.  Please reapply quoting earlier file number or contract PRO”.  Ex.A27 is the complainant’s application dated 18.11.2010 returned by opposite party.  Ex.A28 is the intimation  through website by opposite party to the complainant under file reference VSP-E002122-08 is either wrong or information not available.  Ex.A29 is the Letter dated 21.12.2010 by the complainant to the opposite party stating that file number is right.  Ex.A30 is the postal acknowledgment of Ex.A29.  Ex.A31 is the Letter dated 11.02.2011 by father of complainant (SPA holder) to the opposite party by re-submitting the application which was returned.  Ex.A32 is the Postal acknowledgment of Ex.A31.  Ex.A.33 is again letter dated 05.03.2011 issued by the Opposite party by returning the application of complainant mentioning with present residence proof, submission of original PPF to Visakhapatnam Passport office and also mentioned about ‘apply for Vellore District, Tamilnadu.  Ex.A34 is the letter dated 14.03.2011 by complainant’s father seeking further guidance as re-submission of return application.  Ex.A35 is the postal acknowledgment of Ex.A34.  Ex.A36 is the registered lawyer’s notice dated 03.06.2011 issued by complainant.  Ex.A37 is the reply by the Opposite party to the complainant mentioning that the complainant is unable to issue passport due to suppression of government service and more over, the complainant was also unpaid the penalty of Rs.7,500/- as such they close their file with an advise to reapply the above said application to Regional passport office, Chennai as the complainant is presently residing at Vellore.  Ex.A38 is the Special Power of Attorney given by the Complainant to his father G.Jagannadha Rao dated 04.01.2011.  Ex.A39 is the letter dated 30.08.2012 issued by office of Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam to the Complainant replying the information sought by the Complainant in RTI Act regarding the date of Police verification and which the Regional Passport Office received it.  Ex.A40 is the No objection Certificate dated 03.03.2008 issued by BSNL, Trichy.  Ex.A41 is the application dated 27.05.2012 by the Complainant under RTI Act to the Opposite party regarding the copy of police verification and also for copies of all papers, his application is submitted for renewal of passport and also about all correspondences.  Ex.A42 is the reply dated 29.06.2012 by the opposite party to the complainant in reply for Ex.A41.  Ex.A43 is the Joining report of the complainant in the office of BSNL, Visakhapatnam dated 04.05.2005.  Ex.A44 is the ID card issued by G.M., BSNL, Visakhapatnam.

12.    After perusal of the complaint along with documents, the Forum is of the view that the complainant applied for renewal of passport and after that he made several correspondences and sought information through RTI Act and also issued registered legal notices to the opposite party.  But up to 15.11.2009 i.e., Ex.A11 the Opposite party not answered for the letters of the complainant.  The version of the complainant is that even after submission of No objection Certificate and ID card which was submitted on the same day when the application was submitted to the Opposite party i.e., on 10.03.2008, then, the Opposite party did not take any objection regarding the residential address and about the job.  As per Ex.A40 the complainant applied for No Objection Certificate from his employer and get it on 03.03.2008.  No doubt the Complainant might have been submitted that No objection Certificate at the time of applying for renewal of passport.

13.    The main contention of the Opposite party is that at the time of fill up the application i.e. Ex.B1 the complainant mentioned in column No.8(a) & (b) i.e., permanent address and present residential address mentioned same as Door No.55-14-86, APSEB Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-13.  In Column NO.9 “If you have not been resident at the address given at Column-8(b) i.e., present residential address, continuously for the last one year please furnish other addresses with durations resided (please furnish an additional set of PP Forms for each address with police station)”.  There, the Complainant mentioned that from 01.07.2007 to 01.03.2008 he was residing at Room No.110, Balaram Residency, Thennamarra Street, Vellore, Tamilnadu.  Here we  could clearly noted that the complainant mentioned present residential address on 10.03.2008 as Door No.55-14-86, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, but as per column NO.9 he has to mention Column No.8(b) address of Vellore, Tamilnadu. 

14.    In Column No.13 “Are you working in Central Government/State Government/PSU/Statutory Bodies Yes/No. If Yes attach Identity Certificate but the complainant mentioned as ‘NO’ i.e., “O”. 

15.    More over in Ex.A39 letter issued by the Commissioner of Police under RTI Act, the Opposite party relies and contends that merely processing the application does not mean that the opposite party has not raised any objection and when the application was forwarded to the police, the police on verification on 30.11.2009 made a report and endorsed that the complainant is not residing in the given address in Visakhapatnam and at present, he is working at Vellore, Tamilnadu since July 2007, but he mentioned in Ex.B1 column No.9 that he is resided at Vellore, Tamilnadu only up to 01.03.2008.  But on 30.11.2009 on police enquiry it came out that he is residing at Vellore on that date.  Thus, the complainant suppressed his residential address in his application.  Hence, there is no fault of opposite party on non-renewal of passport of the complainant and no claim can lie unless the causes are not in good faith.  No suit or prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against Government or any authority or anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done.

16.    The Complainant rely upon Section-16 of Passport Act 1967 where it explains that this act oblige not only to the acts done, but also emotions i.e., delay caused by the official concerned, whether such emotion or delay is made in good faith.  Here in this case, the complainant himself made wrong particulars in the application form on which the opposite party lies on this particulars and made antecedents and came to know that the complainant was not resident of Visakhapatnam, at the time of renewal of passport.  Hence, there is absolutely no allegation that there was malafide intention on the part of the opposite party and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party. 

17.    Here, in this case there is no doubt that the complainant made several correspondences to the opposite party, but there is no reply or answer from the opposite party up to 15.11.2009, but basically there is wrong information mentioned in the application itself by the complainant.  Hence, there is no allegation of dishonesty on behalf of or delay on behalf of opposite party.  Therefore, there is no maintainability of this complaint.

18.    It is to be noted that the complainant’s first relief in his complaint is regarding the renewal of passport, but the Forum cannot involve in the administrative matters of passport office as there are their rules and regulations as per Passport Act and more over anybody has to fulfill the terms and conditions accordingly.  Hence, the Forum cannot direct the Passport office to renew the passport where the procedure for application is not followed by the complainant, as such the first relief itself is not maintainable. 

19.    As there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, there is no need to discuss about the compensation.  Hence, the complaint is dismissed.

        Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered against the complainant.

20.    In the result, the Complaint is dismissed.  No order as to the costs.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of October, 2014.

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Member                                                     President (FAC)

                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                        Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Party:

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Member                                                     President (FAC)

                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                Visakhapatnam