Can Lok Adalat Order Issuance of Passport? Punjab & Haryana High Court Answers

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) does not have the jurisdiction to direct the Passport Officer to issue a passport.

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj considered the question whether issuance of Passport would fall within “immigration services” and be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

"'Passport' and 'immigration' operate in different spheres and cannot be used as synonyms. A specific and limited nature of activity cannot be expanded to bring into its fold the activity under a different statutory regime of Passports Act, 1967. The same is essentially a sovereign function and the document essentially remains the property of the Central Government as per Section 17 of the Act of 1967," the Court said in the answer.

The issue arose in petitions moved by two regional passport officers against awards passed by Permanent Lok Adalats for issuance of passports in two cases.

In an award passed by the Lok Adalat the petitioners were directed to prepare and dispatch the passport within a period of 7 days from the passing of impugned award and were further held liable to pay a cost of Rs.1000 per day delay in doing the needful.

Counsel for the petitioners relied on Section 22 (A) (b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to argue that the abovesaid section does not mention anything related to passport, regional passport office or Ministry of External Affairs.

He contended that there is neither any notification in this regard by the Central government nor has it been held in any judicial verdict that would empower the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain any complaint related to passports.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to the Passports Act, 1967 and said it would now be necessary to understand that as against the issuance of passport, the “immigration” is governed by the Central Acts.

The judge explained that by the very nature of the expression used, “immigration” refers to the process of moving into a country to live in, work or settle and The focus of immigration is on people entering the country and are necessarily foreigners.

"To the contrary, the passport is generally a form of identification and proof of citizenship and is a document required for the citizen to travel internationally. It is issued to a citizen of the country, who would not require an “immigration service” for travelling within the country but may need the same for going to some other country. But such a service would essentially be an “emigration service”, if sought within the country. “Emigration Service” is, however, not notified as a public utility service," it added.

Justice Bhardwaj highlighted that, the “passport” or its issuance is not necessarily a service but a sovereign function. As a sovereign authority, the Regional Passport Officer does not carry on any commercial or service oriented activity and an applicant for a passport cannot be termed as a consumer against the sovereign.

"Hence, a Regional Passport Officer cannot be said to be the service provider and in the absence of any relationship of service provider and recipient and when the core activity is non-commercial sovereign function, it would not satisfy the requirement of a Public Utility Service," said the Court.

In the light of the above, the Court opined that, "the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), did not have the jurisdiction to direct the Passport Officer to issue a passport as the same would not fall in the definition of an “immigration service.”

Stating that the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) thus erred in exercising jurisdiction and allowing the application, the Court allowed the plea.

Mr.IndreshGoel,Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Z.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2 in CWP-1953-2024.

Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2 in CWP-6801-2024.

Title: REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS v. PERMANENT LOK ADALAT (PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES) LUDHIANA AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 291

Click here to read/download the order