REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER Vs. KAPIL RATTAN
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
Click here to view full judgement.
ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. -
(1.) THIS is an application for condonation of delay. Admittedly, impugned order was passed by District Forum, Shimla, Camp at Nahan, while disposing of Complaint No.107/2004,
on 8.12.2004. Appellant was ex -parte in this case. A perusal of the facts
detailed in this application as well as grounds of appeal indicate that
according to the appellant, it had deputed Mr. Sukh Dev, L.D.C. to attend
the hearing that was fixed on 5.11.2004. He, as per averments made in the
grounds of appeal and in this application, waited at Nahan for the
District Forum till 4.00 Oclock. There were no proceedings held on that
day Thereafter according to the appellant, it was waiting for the next
date of hearing to be informed by the District Forum. On the other hand,
complaint file shows, that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, as
such the District Forum set the appellant ex -parte, and then proceeded to
decide the case.
(2.) WE propose to dispose of the application for condonation of delay, as well as the appeal on merits. It was not disputed on behalf of
the appellant that application for issuance of passport was received in
the office of respondent No.2. According to this respondent, this
application was forwarded alongwith police report on 1.2.2003 to the
office of the appellant. Mr. Anoop Sharma, learned A.D.A. has produced
the office file pertaining to this case. Its perusal shows that the
application of respondent No.1 duly complete in all respects with police
report was forwarded besides six other applications in the manner to the
office of the appellant.
(3.) WHEN the passport was not issued, respondent No.1 got legal notice issued through his learned Counsel as per copy, Annexure -C on 3.6.2004.
It was submitted by Mr. Thakur on behalf of the appellant on the basis of
the record that for the first time on 28.9.2004 it was intimated to
respondent No.1 that there are some discrepancies in the police report,
as such after doing the needful, police report be sent again. This stand
was seriously contested and resisted by Mr. Sharma, learned A.D.A., as
according to him no such letter was received in the office of respondent
No.2. Only one letter was received in the office of respondent No.2 from
the appellant and it is dated 29.9.2004. It was duly replied to by
respondent No.2 on 11.10.2004. He has shown us the record of both these
letters from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour.
According to Mr. Thakur, letter dated 11.10.2004 was received on 21.10.2004, thereafter passport was issued on that very day. Thus,
according to him, there was no delay, muchless inaction on the part of
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.