BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION.
KAMRUP
C.C.No. 9/2016
Present: I) Shri A.F.A.Bora, M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S(Rtd.)-President
II) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
III) Shri Tutumoni Deva Goswami, B.A.L.L.B.- Member
- Smti Urmila Agarwal - Complainants
W/O- Justice B.D.Agarwal (Retired)
R/O – VIP Road,Six Mile, Radha Nagar,
Guwahati-781022,
District: Kamrup (Metro),Assam
-vs-
1) The Regional Passport Officer, -Opp. parties
Rani Bagan, Basista Road, Bye lane No.3
Guwahati-781028, Assam
2) The Deputy Passport Officer
Passport Sewa Kendra,
Subham Belocity, Hanuboro Path, Walford.
Guwahati-781005, Assam -
Appearance:
For the complainant Sri Satyajit Dutta Learned advocate .
For the Opp.party Mr.Difenso Mam Learned advocate .
Date of filing written argument by the complainant :- 11.5.2018
Date of oral argument by the complainant :-17.12.2021 and 4.2.2022
Date of judgment: - 2.3.2022
JUDGMENT
Fact of the case
1) This is a complaint filed by one Smti Urmila Agarwal against (I) The Regional Passport Officer, Basista Road, Guwahati-781028, Assam and (II) The Deputy Passport Officer, Passport Sewa Kendra, Subham Belocity, Hanuboro Path, Walford, Guwahati-781005, Assam .The case was admitted on 3.2.16, notices were served upon the opp.parties. The opp.parties filed their written statement and complainant filed her evidence on affidavit as C.W. No. 1 . Opp.party filed questionnaire to her accordingly she filed her answers. Retired Justice Sri B.D.Agarwal filed his evidence as C.W. No. 2 . Opp.party filed questionnaire to C.W. No. 2. Accordingly C.W. No. 2 filed his answers. Opp.parties filed their evidence on affidavit and complainant filed questionnaire to the opp.party and next date i.e. 20.3.2018 was fixed for filing reply by the opp.parties. But opp.parties were absent and case was fixed for filing written argument by the parties. On 11.5.18 complainant filed written argument . On 12.1.2021 an order was passed fixing the case for oral argument by the parties . The opp.parties preferred revision petition before the Hon’ble State Commission and matter was pending for a long period of time and on 10.10.2019 the case record was received back from the Hon’ble State Commission
Learned counsel of the complainant forwarded his oral argument on 17.12.21 and 4.2.22 and case has been fixed for delivery of judgment.
2) The brief fact is that complainant is a passport holder since 1986 being passport No. X-457215. After expiry of the validity of the said passport the complainant got a new passport on 19.5.1999 issued from the opp.party office bearing passport No. A 7676203. It was valid till 18.5.2009.
3) During the validity of the 2nd passport , which was issued on 19.5.1999 the complainant husband become a Judge of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court ,Guwahati on 12.10.2006. Thereafter the Respondent authorities issued diplomatic passport Nos. D 1024648 and D 1024647 in the name of complainant and her husband respectively and its validity period was till 17.6.14. Before the expiry of the validity period the diplomatic passport were surrendered in the office of the opp.parties on 10.6.14.
4) Complainant and her husband applied for renewal of their passport through online on 30.7.15 and they were also given appointment for renewal of their passport on 5.8.15 at 2-45 p.m. in the office of Respondent No. 2. The complainant’s husband verbally requested at the Registration counter of the Respondent No. 2 to process both the files together . However the request was turned down and reasons best known to the Respondent authorities , the files were separated. Thereafter, the complainant was given token No. N 291 and her husband was given token No. S 32.
5) The complainant husband requested the officer at the Registration counter (i.e. the office of the Respondent No. 2) that he was ready to give up his priority in the process as a senior citizen provided both the applications are processed together . However, this offer was also rejected and both the files were segregated from the each other with an intention to harass the complainant.
6) In the entire process all the necessary documents in original were produced before the respondent No. 2 including electricity bill, original pass book of saving bank account issued by the State Bank of India, Six mile branch , Guwahati. Despite these documents the grant of passport of the complainant was withheld due to pre police verification report , from the concerned police station but strangly on the basis of the same documents for renewal of expired passport the complainant’s husband has been granted the new pass port without prior police verification , whereas the complainant’s passport was withheld for want of police verification.
7) Opp.party No.1 intimated the complainant through e-mail that after surrender of Diplomatic passport police verification is mandatory. The stand taken by the opp.parties is not legally correct in as much as it was not a case of grant of a fresh passport altogether , but renewal of the passport granted in the year 1999. In this way the complainant was subjected to discriminatory treatment because her passport was withheld till receipt of police report.
8) It is alleged that due to negligent and unethical practice on the part of the opp.parties the complainant as well as her family could not materialize their trip to Dubai in the schedule time. Moreover, such type of poor /unbecoming performance and ignorance of law is very unfortunate whereby the complainant has suffered immense mental agony/harassment and inferior quality of service provided to complainant amounts to deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the said deficiency was caused by the Respondent authorities willfully and with a malafide intention and as such, the complainant deserves to be suitably compensated.
9) The opp.party No.1 & 2 contested their proceedings by filing their written statement stating that complaint petition is not maintainable. They do not fall under the definition of service as well as said petition is wholly, misconceived, groundless and unsustainable , same is liable to dismissed with cost . They also states that this forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this dispute as it is exclusively triable by the civil court. The answering opp.parties state that as per prescribed guideline the senior citizens are issued special token marked as “S” to facilitate them. Accordingly the husband and the complainant was given the special token”S” who was above 60 years of age . For availing the priority neither the complainant nor her husband approached any officer with written application and issuance of token is a system generated method based on different age groups. The op.parties also submitted that there is no rule for giving preference to Govt. servant as per passport manual .
10) Appendix 12 table 1 A 8 of passport Manual stipulates that application in respect of retired govt. servant can be granted in post verification provided documents are submitted i.e. proof of present address, proof of date of birth, pension payment order. The complainant’s husband submitted all the requisite documents along with the application and accordingly his application was granted on post police verification and on the other hand complainant who is not a Govt. servant and there was a change involved in her present address with reference to the address as declared in her last passport and hence complainant’s case was taken up under pre police verification. It is stated by the opp.parties that complainant was issued short term validity Diplomatic Passport having its validity for tenure as judgeship and six months more. The date of birth of justice Agarwal is 17.6.1952 and he retired in June /2014 and as such complainant was granted passport for less than validity as per manual.
11) The opp.parties further submitted in their written statement that as per chapter 3 rule 51 C stipulates that “……… persons who were issued short validity official/diplomatic passport for short visit abroad, will be covered by normal rules for police verification . Further Rule 53 B also confirms the same and Rule 5:14 states that “passport may be reissued on post PV basis if application is submitted before expiiry or within 3 years after expiry of passport provided system shows clear police verification and nothing adverse is noticed in the system.” As there was no immediate information available in the system regarding clearance of police report against earlier passport issued the granting officer had to grant in “pre verification “mode . The granting officer had acted as per prescribed rule in granting of passport .
12) The opp.parties states further in their written statement that passport of the daughter –in-law of the complainant was granted on post verification mode as the system confirmed that the police verification was cleared against issuance of her earlier passport . There are several sub-rules for initiation of police verification as per passport manual . The rules citied by the complainant is just a tip in the iceberg. It is stated that the authorities can issue passport only after following the guidelines. The police clearance of the complainant was received online on 14.10.15 and instantly passport was printed, dispatched and the same was delivered to the complainant by 20.10.2015 and as such it cannot be said any delay was caused by the opp.parties .
13) The answering opp.parties states that under the provisions of section 2(1)(d) of the Act, the complaint petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed with cost, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.
Points to be decided
I) Whether the complainant was a diplomatic passport holder and surrendered her passport for getting a normal passport ?
II) Whether the diplomatic passport which was issued by the opp. parties in the name of the complainant is short validity diplomatic passport ?
III) Whether the opp.parties have committed any deficiency in service by sending the file of the complainant for pre police verification for passport renewal due to address mentioned in the last passport which is not similar with the address mentioned in the application for renewal of passport ?
Reasons for decision
Issue No.I
14) From the pleadings and exhibited documents of the parties we have found that on 21.12.2010 complainant was granted diplomatic passport which was issued by the opp.parties after the complainant’s husband became a judge of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and it was surrendered by the complainant in the office of the opp.party in June, 2014 and in this regard opp.party issued “Safe Custody certificate” of the Diplomatic Passport exhibited by the complainant i.e. Ext.3. Therefore, issue No. I is decided in favour of the complainant.
Issue No.II
15) Whether the diplomatic passport which was issued by the opp. parties in the name of the complainant is short validity diplomatic passport ?
16) We have gone through the written statement and evidence of the op.parties which stated that Appendix 12 table I A 8 of passport manual 2012 stipulates that application in respect of retired govt.servant can be granted in post verification provided (I) proof of present address, (II) proof of date of birth and (III) pension payment order are submitted and in the instant case the husband of the complainant submitted all the requisite documents along with the application and accordingly his application was granted on post police verification . However , the complainant who is not a govt.servant and there was a change involve in her present address with reference to the address as declared in her last passport and hence her case was granted on pre police verification.
17) From the evidence of the complainant it is found that her husband namely , Justice (Retired) B.D.Agarwal become a judge of the Gauhati High Court on 12.10.2006 . Thereafter, opp.party issued diplomatic passport to her and her husband . Diplomatic passport was issued on 21.12.2010 . She stated that as per official guidelines under Appendix -28 the opp.parties ought to have issued diplomatic passport for tenure of judgeship of the complainant’s husband and for another period of 6 months . The opp.parties granted diplomatic passport till the retirement age the opp.parties did not make any endorsement in the diplomatic passport that it was a short validity passport and as to why 6 months extra validity was not given .
18) The deponent in her affidavit stated that she was granted diplomatic passport on 21.12.2010 and the validity of the passport was in force till 17.6.14 although she surrendered her passport on 10.6.2014 before applying for renewal of ordinary passport . We have seen “Rule 5.1 No-PV cases” that those who hold/held diplomatic passport(valid or within 3 years of expiry) and this however applies only to persons who were issued diplomatic passport by virtue of their constitution position or government service (including their dependents) . Our view is that as the opp parties could not clearly proved the contents of the objecting the allegations of the complainant, that pre police verification was required as the complainant’s passport was a short validity passport. Opp.parties ought to have proved that it was a short validity diplomatic passport. We cannot hold that the said diplomatic passport of the complainant was a short validity passport without proving the elements of the term “diplomatic passport for short validity” . Opp.party could have explained the definition of “ short validity diplomatic passport” which they did not do . It has been stated by C.W.1 that the complainant was covered under serial No. 10(1) in Appendix 28. Hence the diplomatic passport issued to the complainant and her husband cannot be termed as short validity diplomatic passport. Accordingly issue No. (II) is decided in negative.
Issue No. III
Whether the opp.parties have committed any deficiency in service by sending the file of the complainant for pre police verification for passport renewal due to address mentioned in the last passport which is not similar with the address mentioned in the application for renewal of passport ?
19) We have found the defendant witness Sri J.Chakraborty stated that Rule 5 .1 C and Rule 5.3 B (Exhibit A(3) Chapter 3) clearly says that persons who were issued short validity official /diplomatic passport will be covered by normal rules for police verification. Now 5.1 C of the passport manual 5.3 B are as follows.
“ 5.1 No –PV cases
C Those who hold /held diplomatic /official passport (valid or within 3 years of expirty ) whether in service or retured , when applying for issue of ordinary passport after surrender /safe custody of diplomatic / official passport.
This however, applies only to persons who were issued diplomatic official passports by virtue of their constitutional position or government service (including their dependence ). Persons , who were issued short validity official /diplomatic passports for short visits abroad , will be covered by normal rules for police verification.”
5.3 pre-PV cases b “persons who were issued short validity official / diplomatic passports for short visits. “
20) The complainant stated in her evidence that regular diplomatic passports issued to the dignitaries covered under Appendix 28 cannot be called as short validity passport. The deponent has stated that all the relevant documents regarding identity identity address proof etc. were submitted and produced at the PSK on 5.8.2015 and issuance of the passport of the complainant was not withheld for want of any document.
21) We have found the opp.parties put the following questions to the complainant .
“ Is it true that your address mentioned in the last passport issued to you differs from the address referred to you in your application ?
Answer- Yes. This was one of the reasons to apply for renewal of the passport. For the same reason, my husband had also applied for renewal of his passport and his passport was renewed without pre-police Verification report.”
22) It is apparent from the discussion made here-in-above on the evidence adduced by the parties that passport renewal of the complainant was sent for police verification owing to change of addresses and system of the opp.party office have not given the clearance for issuing the renewal certificate . This is the only issue pertaining to this case that whether sending the passport of the complainant for police verification is due to address changes and amounting to any deficiency of service on the part of the op.party.
23) In the instant case the evidence of the C.W.2 is clear enough that he made a verbal request to the passport authority that his file for renewal and the file of his wife (complainant) should not be segregated and requested the registration clerk to process both the file together. Admittedly the file of the C.W.2 was given priority being a senior citizen. But the official did not respond him and his request and asked him to take their respective seats outside. Thereafter two different token were given for C.W.2 and the complainant, for which act it is alleged that they have been subject to harassment and mental torture . Ext. 5 are particular documents pertaining to token No. S 32. It is stated by C.W.2 that prior police verification was not required since August 2015 and opp.party have not placed on record the latest guideline and circular available for renewal of passport. Here it is alleged that suppression of relevant guideline and circular of opp.parties is an act amounting to deficiency in service . The passport of C.W.2 was renewed on 7.8.2015, but passport of the complainant for renewal was withheld for want of police verification . Admittedly passport of retired government servant can be granted on post verification basis provided the applicants submitted address proof , birth dated documents and pension payment etc. In the present case in hand , there is a claim from the complainant that she had submitted all the documents including address proof etc. along with her file , and there is a clear evidence on the part of the C.W. 2 that he had submitted all the documents along with his renewal application and his passport was renewed instantly. Here , we have not found any evidence for op.party that complainant have not submitted required documents.
i) The following documents has been submitted by the parties.
Ext. 1 and Ext 2 are the passport of the deponent granted in the year 1986, 1999.
Ext. 3 is the safe custody certificate of the diplomatic passport of the dependent.
Ext.4 is the acknowledge letter with token No. N 29 .
Ext.5 the new passport of the dependent issued on 15.10.2015
Ext.6 is the e.mail correspondence between the deponent’s husband and reply of the op.party No. 1.
ii) C.W. No. 2 exhibited
Ext. 1 and Ext 2 are the passport of the deponent granted in the year 1986, 1998.
Ext. 3 is the safe custody certificate of the diplomatic passport of the dependent.
Ext.4 is the appointment confirmation of the deponent.
Ext. 5 is the token No. S 32 and Ext. 6 is the new passport issued on 7.8.2015.
iii) O.P.W. Sri Joydeep Chakroborty exhibited the following documents.
1. Exhibit A is the passport manual 2010.
Exhibit A (1) is Appendix 12 table 1 A 8.
Exhibit A (2) is appendix 12 table 1 A 20.
Exhibit A (3) is Chapter 3 Rule 5.1 C and Rule 5.3 B
2. Exhibit B is the general details of application of Urmila Agarwal
24) From the record it is found that opp.party have submitted questionnaire and complainant side have submitted their answer which have been perused carefully. During trial the opp.party filed their evidence on affidavit and also filed the questionnaire , but no answer has been submitted by the opp.party as opp.party were absent and case was proceeded for filing written argument. In such a situation the opp.party have not availed the opportunity of rebutting the allegations made by the complainant as to the deficiency in service causing delay in issuing renewal of passport.
25) From the whole sequence of happenings as narrated by the parties in their evidence we have directly come to a question to decide this particular issue whether police verification is necessary for conversion of diplomatic passport to a normal passport ; as already decided that the diplomatic passport of the complainant was not a short validity passport and no normal rules for police verification is essential. The Rule 5.1 of the passport manual,2010 the specific provision has already been discussed here-in-above. The reason for withholding the renewal of the passport of the complainant is that the system did not give clearance in respect of change of address etc. But evidence of the op.party is not there to show the fact that there were requirement of more documents for renewal of the passport after surrender of diplomatic passport by the complainant.
26) We have also taken the situation that prevailed with the renewal of the passport of both husband and wife and found no good reason for withholding renewal of the passport of the wife, whereas upon the same documents the passport of the C.W.2 i.e. the husband of the complainant was renewed instantly.
27) We are also of the view that when husband and wife both together appeared before the office of the opp.party then we do not find any reason why the documents are not taken together for consideration. It may be a rule for segregation of files, but in such a case when there were change of address of both the applicant the discretion of the officers should be there not to segregate the files and to club both the files together so that the officers on duty can take a decision instantly not allowing the same to go for further process for want of system clearance etc. or for police verification.
28) In the result our view is that there is some amount of deficiency in service on the part of the op.parties, but there is no such evidence on record to hold a view that delay of around 2 months have not caused any huge loss or such type of delay which need to be compensated by imposing high cost etc . But to give an opportunity to realize the problematic situation for such deficiency in service on the part of the op.party, some amount of compensation is to be awarded to the complainant which is in our opinion will meet the end of justice.
29) In the result , both the opp.parties are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only . The parties will bear their cost.
Given under our hand and seal of the District Commission, Kamrup, this the 2nd day of March /2022.
Shri A.F.A.Bora
President
District Consumer Commission, Kamrup
Smti Archana Deka Lahkar
Member
District Consumer Commission, Kamrup
Shri Tutumoni Deva Goswami
Member
District Consumer Commission, Kamrup
Dictated and corrected by me
Shri A.F.A.Bora
President,
District Consumer Commission, Kamrup.
Typed by me
Smt Juna Borah
Stenographer,
District Consumer Commission, Kamrup.
