Sh. Rashpal Singh, the titled complainant claims to have been the rightful holder of the Indian Pass-Port bearing No. L-1088614 as duly issued on 02.08.2013 (valid up to 01.08.2023), in routine order, by the Opposite Party (in short, the OP) i.e., Regional Passport Office on behalf of and representing the Republic of India, at Jalandhar (Punjab). The OP office at Jalandhar, operates under the administrative control of the Ministry External Affairs (MEA) to facilitate/cater to the passport related needs of the residents of the region.
2. The complainant further claims to have held (along with his wife) Canadian Tourist Visas to visit their P.R. Visa Holder Son at Toronto (Canada). The couple purchased two air-travel tickets and reported at New Delhi Indira Gandhi Airport on 05.03.2019 to catch their pre-booked flight to Toronto leaving at 01:30 Hrs on 06.03.2019. However, to their shocking surprise the Immigration Authorities at the Airport refused boarding to the complainant, impounded his passport and issued him the seizure-memo with instructions to approach the OP Office to get apprised of the ‘PP-Impounding’ reasons and also to get his seized-passport, released.
3. Under the circumstances, the complainant was left with no other choice but to return back from the Airport and to let her wife (a simpleton house-hold lady) to manage her maiden 16-hour air-travel, alone. The complainant suffered immense humiliation besides mental agony and physical harassment on his way back home, his wife also suffered discomfort coupled with nervousness all the way to Canada and their son stayed tenses and worry-some, till he could finally receive his mother at the Toronto Airport. All the family’s excitedly-planned re-union and stay-together holidays at Canada turned gloomy and the air-travel an awesome experience.
4. The complainant, upon return from the Airport had visited the OP office at Jalandhar on 07.03.2019 to get apprised of the reasons that led to impounding n seizure of his Passport at New Delhi Airport. Once there, he was allowed hearing before one designated officer but only on 08.03.2019 and that too sans an appropriate relief or even a satisfactory response. All he could get there comprised of an advisory to file an ‘inquiry’ briefing his tale of sorrow and to get back after 15 days to get apprised of its fate. Thereafter, the complainant has been visiting the OP office time and again but with ‘NIL’ results. However, the complainant was delivered his passport along with the Enquiry Slip (Attended 25.03.2019) and the Impounded PP Release Letter (27.03.2019), at his residence through ordinary post.
5. The complainant, in order to understand the matter/ issue pertaining to ‘seizure’ of his Passport at Airport and also to rule-out similar repeats/recurrences etc., in future visited the OP Office again on 02.04.2019 and there, the concerned/dealing official told him that ‘seizure’ of his Passport at the Airport has resulted as related ‘release cum clearance orders’ dated 29.10.2013 could neither be updated on-line, at the OP website nor the ‘impounding-orders dated 11.10.2013 could be deleted and that had alerted the vigilant Immigration Office to act ‘seize’ the complainant’s Passport and restrict him from leaving the country.
6. Lastly, the complainant complains having suffered substantial financial-loss besides the physical-harassment, mental-agony, deepest-worry and painful-torture suffered by the three family members as narrated in the above paragraphs. The Financial losses were summarized as:
i) Complainant’s Air Ticket: Rs.120,000/-
ii) Taxi Charges to Airport: Rs.38,000/-
iii) Hotel Stay at Jalandhar: Rs.8,000/-
iv) Visits to Jalandhar: Rs.10,000/-
Total: Rs.176,000/-
7. Finally, the complainant has sought payment of Rs.175,000/- with interest @ 9% PA from the date of purchase of Air-Ticket in lieu of the ‘financial-loss’ caused to him for no fault of his besides Rs.300,000/- be as compensation/damages for having inflicted virtual-injuries as detailed-out hereinabove (in the preceding paragraphs), coupled with Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation, all in the interest of justice.
8. That, there were no takers at OP office to the complainant’s request for redressal of his genuine grievances and expecting no respite and losing all hopes of relief there, the complainant has finally filed the present complaint supported by the hereunder enlisted/exhibited documents as have been taken on records:
i) Affidavit C-1/A by way of self-declaration by Rachpal Singh Complainant duly deposing the contents of the instant complaint.
ii) C-1: To & Fro Air-Ticket from New Delhi to Toronto.
iii) C-2: Seizure Memo dated 05.03.2019 of PP # L1088614.
iv) C-3: Enquiry Slip (Response) dated 25.03.2019.
v) C-4: Suspension/ Release Letter dated 27.03.2019.
vi) C-5 Copy of Complainant’s Aadhar Card.
vii) C-6 Copy of Complainant’s PAN Card.
viii) C-7 Copy of Complainant’s Passport bearing No. L-1088614.
ix) Rebuttal to Written Reply (by Complainant) taken on record on 30.07.2021
9. The OP Office, in response to the Commission’s Summons, appeared through its counsel and filed its written-version, refuting therein, in entirety, all the allegations as made out in the complaint; And, have thus put-forth their preliminary objections:
i) At the very outset, the complaint has been labeled/addressed as ‘not-maintainable’ and thus ‘liable to be dismissed’. However, no elaboration has been put-forth in support of its somewhat baldly-stated ‘address’.
ii) Next, the OP refused to admit here the statutory (consumer-service provider) relationship with the ‘complainant’ and further claimed that all its ‘acts’ fall under ‘sovereign-function’ under the provisions of the Passport Act.
iii) Further, issuance of Passport does not fall in line with ‘consumer-disputes’.
iv) Again, the OP herein has referred S-16 of the Pass-Port Act, 1967, that bars all suits, prosecutions and legal proceedings etc against Govt., or any Officer or authority for an act/anything done in ‘good-faith’ or intended to be done under this Act and thus the present complaint need be listed for dismissal.
v) That the forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain (and put on trial) the present complaint as the OP functions from Jalandhar, passport application was received at Jalandhar and the Passport was issued from Jalandhar.
vi) Lastly, the Passport No. L-1088614 had come to be issued on 02.08.2013 on the basis of post-police verification report; however, on 26.09.2013, the OP did receive an adverse police report and thus on 11.10.2013, complainant’s passport was impounded for suppression of material information pertaining to FIR No. 34/95 registered against him. Again, the OP office on 29.10.2013, had received the police clearance-report & had thereon immediately released the complainant’s passport. Lastly, the OP office has re-stated/affirmed that no complaint lies on the facts and circumstances.
10. That, the OP office advancing its version ‘on merits’ has further invariably, either denied or addressed the contents of paragraph 1 to 11 as being the matters of records/ or legal issues, only.
11. That, the OP office in its reply to paragraph 12 of complaint has finally addressed the complaint as ‘incompetent’ to any relief and thus liable to be dismissed.
12. That, the contents of OP’s written version have been deposed by the accompanying affidavit of Sh. Purshotam Kumar Padam Assistant Passport Officer, who somehow have preferred not to produce any documentary-evidence in its defense.
13. The learned counsel for the complainant presented-forth his detailed arguments duly highlighting violation of the legislated consumer-rights of his client, in the name of sovereign-function upon whom law bestows protection/ immunity (qualified - in good faith) against legal action, suits and prosecution etc. The counsel summed-up his orations/ briefing as; sad n shocking pricks of sorrows to which his client (along with his other family-members) was unwittingly subjected to, by the OP office. The counsel for the complainant cited judgements passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Regional Passport Officer vs Anuradha Thadipathri Gopinath 3(2008) CPJ 118 NC decided on 10.07.2008. He has submitted that the correct legal position on the subject has been summarized in the later part of para-5 of the reference order dated 17.11.2015 in Revision Petition No. 120 of 2015 titled as Passport Officer, Passport Office vs Richa Bhandari decided by the Honble National vide orders dated 16.03.2016.
14. In reciprocation, the OP’s learned counsel, repeatedly insisted that all the acts and omissions, if any, said to be committed by the OP office were done during the discharge of its ‘sovereign-function’ and thus no legal-prosecution whatsoever gets attracted by virtue of the legislated provisions of Passports Act, 1967. The OP Office, for reasons best known to them alone, ignored to file any documentary evidence, in its defense. Even, the police-verification reports (received, in quick succession and with altered versions) finding mention in its written version (Paragraph 6-preliminary objections) were omitted to be produced. Incidentally, in the OP’s written-version, these very police reports had been the basis of the complained against act(s)/ omission(s) on the OP’s part. With closure of their respective pleadings/ arguments, the trial-proceedings got determined, awaiting final orders.
15. We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for those ignored to be produced) in order to adjudicate/determine the respective ‘claims’ as put-forth by the present litigants in the light of arguments advanced by their respective learned counsels representing the two sides. We find that the complainant had to suffer much hardship on account of one stark cum negligent (impliedly admitted) act/omission on the OP’s part, who had somehow ignored to upload its Passport Release Orders (29.10.2013) and also to delete the already uploaded Passport Impounding Orders (11.10.2013) from its Website upon receipt of Police Clearance Report (29.10.2013) pertaining to the complainant’s passport No. L-1088614. And, the negligent omission on the OP’s part had continued/stayed un-checked/un-amended for six long years till its correction on 27.03.2019, as casually advised to the complainant through ordinary post only. To top it up all, the OP Office has ignorantly as well as arrogantly claimed legal protection under the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967.
16. We find that the OP has somehow exhibited its poor knowledge of law through its misinterpretation of provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as well as the Passport Act, 1967. The OP Office has been ignorant of the provisions of Section 34 of the C.P. Act, 2019 that bestows territorial (as well as other) Jurisdiction upon the District Commissions upon the place of residence of the complainant/ where he works for gain. The OP have also failed to recognize and appreciate the sure but razor-sharp distinction between ‘sovereign’ and ‘non-sovereign’ functions that Govt. Ministries/ Govt. Corporate as well as other Body Corporate are get to perform with the change of public-scenario as well as public-policy. Now, the term ‘Sovereign-State’ has given way to ‘Well-fare State’ almost in more than half of the Nations/ Countries around the Globe. Broadly saying, The Concept of Well-fare State is to ensure ‘comfort & well-being’ of its citizens/ residents while assuring a safe-living (law & order) as well as ‘security’ (sovereign-function) of State from internal rebellion/external aggression; thus, in many instances both these functions are performed by one and the same authority and here lies the legal-protection even to ‘sovereign-functions’ associated with impunity. Likewise, the discharge of ‘non-sovereign functions’ in derogation to ‘statutory-terms’ of law do attract ‘statutory-penalty’. We observe that issuance or refusal to issue/ impound/ release etc., of passports to applicants (along with many other such-like issues) does fall under the discretionary prerogative of the OP office being i.e., one of many ‘sovereign-functions’ bestowed upon it vide the legislated provisions of law. But, uploading/deletion of a sanctioned/overruled order (passed in exercise of sovereign function) on the related website, by no stretch of imagination can be addressed as a ‘Sovereign-Function’. It shall certainly fall under routine ‘Non-Sovereign Function’ and will not attract any statutory legal-protection.
17. Further, the OP have themselves in paragraph 4 of its written reply have admitted that S-16 of the Pass Port Act, 1967 bars suits, prosecution and legal proceedings against Govt., any of its officer or authority or anything done in ‘good faith’ or intended to be done in ‘good-faith’ under this Act. It shall be pertinent here to acknowledge that ‘negligence’ not only dilutes but it mars the very sanctity of ‘good-faith’. For, that matter an act or omission found to have been done/ committed in ‘negligence’ cannot qualify for having done in ‘good-faith’. By the time a plethora of senior court judgments have awarded ‘sanctity’ of law to the said ‘phrase’ through repeated legal interpretation of ‘good-faith’ that crumbles like a mound of sand under the weight of ‘negligence’. Hundreds of volumes of explanation may fall short to justify the OP’s six-year unchecked/ unattended delay in uploading and deletion of two of its own self-determined orders that caused nightmares to the sadly aggrieved complainant. But, here the OP office in its arrogantly attracted ignorance of law, have been repeatedly justifying its violation of statutory consumer rights of complainants and further sought legal-protection in the name of ‘sovereign-function’.
18. We find that the Complainant had been the rightful holder of Passport No. L-1088614 issued to him on 02.08.2013 and its impounding and subsequent release etc should have been urgently intimated to him but these were never brought to his knowledge till the passport was finally seized at New Delhi Airport on 05.03.2019 i.e., the stark omission continued to stay uncorrected for a period of six years.
19. We hold the OP office negligent in his acts/omissions pertaining to the complainant’s passport and thus it does not stand entitled to avail of legal prosecution available to acts/ omissions committed in ‘good-faith’ under the Passport Act, 1967. As already, explained hereinabove an act/omission committed in ‘negligence’ cannot be said to have done in ‘good-faith’.
20. Finally, we find the OP Office guilty of having vehemently violated the statutory consumer rights of the complainant and as per the complainant cited judgements passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Regional Passport Officer vs Anuradha Thadipathri Gopinath 3(2008) CPJ 118 NC decided on 10.07.2008 and Revision Petition No. 120 of 2015 titled as Passport Officer, Passport Office vs Richa Bhandari decided by the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission dated 16.03.2016 thus hold them liable to pay a matching compensation to the complainant under the provisions of the C. P. Act, 2019.
21. We observe that the complainant has justifiably sought compensation of Rs.120,000/- spent by him to purchase Air Ticket that was wasted on account of ‘seizure’ of his Passport at New Delhi Airport. Further, he has claimed Taxi Charges Rs.38,000/- , Hotel Stay Rs.8,000/- and Jalandhar Visits Rs.10,000/- as paid by him besides this claimed Rs 3Lacs as compensation. We find these on the higher side and observe that the complainant could have exercised austerity by using public-transport, instead. An appropriate moderation needs to be applied, here.
22. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Office to pay the complainant Rs.120,000/- on account of the Air-Ticket Loss @6% PA from the date of its purchase till actual realization and another Rs.50,000/- as lump-sum compensation for the remaining financial loss as well as for his having suffered other hardships etc., besides Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation; all, payable within 45 days of receipt of the copy of these orders.
23. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
24. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
April 28, 2022 Member.
*YP*
