I. GANAPATHY vs REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER

THESE are two appeals, one by the complainant and the other by the opposite party.

THE case of the Complainant was as follows:- He applied in the course of August, 1991 to the opposite party for issuance of a passport to him. In the meanwhile he got one offer to go abroad and to get a lucrative employment which he had to decline for want of passport. THE passport office has been delaying the matter. It was dealing with it in a sluggish manner and has been asking for certificates and informations not required. Though more than 18 months elapsed from the date of his application he was not yet supplied with a passport. He therefore, prayed for an order directing the Passport Authorities to issue forthwith a passport and to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,75,000/-. In the course of the pendency of the proceedings before the District Forum the complainant received his passport. Dealing only with the compensation, the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 300/as compensation. Aggrieved by the meagre amount granted as compensation the complainant filed this appeal first cited. Taking the stand that no compensation ought to have been ordered by the District Forum, the opposite party has preferred the appeal second cited. Both of the appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order. The learned Government Pleader has raised the question of maintainability of the complaint.

The first question which therefore arises in these appeals in whether the complaint is maintainable ?

FOR moving the machinery created under the Consumer Protection Act, one should be a consumer and for that purpose he should have availed of any service for consideration. Issuance of a passport to a person is certainly a service in the ordinary connotation of the term. Most of the acts of the Government are services to the people. But for giving jurisdiction to the District FORum the service should be for consideration. This will mean that such service is marketable, offered to all, provided that the required consideration is paid, without any discretion to give or not to give to any particular person. The contemplation of profit is not indispensable, but the contemplation of quid pro quo should be present. We shall now proceed to examine whether the issuance of the passport by the Government is a service for consideration ?

A passport is issued under the Passport Act, 1967. Section 3 of that Act provides that no person shall depart from India unless he holds a valid passport. As per Section 6 of the Act the Passport Authority is entitled to refuse to issue a passport for visiting any foreign country on the conditions mentioned in that Section. As per Section 10 of the Act, the Passport Authority may impound or revoke a passport. As per Section 18, the passport shall not be issued to a person if he is not permitted to emigrate. As per Section 19 upon the issue of a notification to that effect in respect of a country, the passport will cease to be valid for that country. The above provisions would clearly disclose that the State while issuing a passport is not providing any service for consideration. By the institution of the passport the State has used its sovereign power in making the passport indispensable to any one who wants to leave India. The whole issuance of the passport is therefore in public interest. It is not meant to serve any individual able and willing to pay. It is meant to further the policy of the Government in matter of security, immigration and emigration. This shows the specific characteristic of the passport the possession thereof is a necessary condition to be fulfilled by any who wants to leave the country as per the existing law. It is not a service within the meaning of the Act. It is true that a fee is levied on every application for passport as per the Passport Rules, 1930. But that cannot be for consideration. The fee may be much less or much more than the actual costs involved in the issuance of the passport according to the policy of the Government. The latter does not keep an account of all the costs involved (building, staff, office expenses, printing of passport etc.) in the preparation and issue of passport and does not fix the fee so as to meet the totality of the costs. Secondly, the concept of consideration as pointed out earlier would mean that the service is available to every one in the market of services. In the case of passport considerable amount of discretion is vested on the Government to grant it or not to grant, to impound or not to impound. We are very far from the concept of a service available to any one upon paying the corresponding costs. It the above said circumstance, we are satisfied that the issuance of the passport is very far from service for consideration and that therefore the complainant is not a consumer entitled to move the machinery created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

IN the result, the appeal filed by the opposite party No. 10/94 is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is rejected. Accordingly the appeal filed by the complainant No. 58/93 stands dismissed. Appeal filed by O.P. allowed. Appeal filed by Complainant dismissed.