Assistant Director NADRA at Rahim Abad Vs Amir Gul

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

MINGORA BENCH (DAR-UL-QAZA), SWAT

(Judicial Department) R.F.A No. 39-M/2022 with C.M No. 1097-M/2022 Assistant Director NADRA at Rahim Abad Swat Vs. Amir Gul Present: Mr. Fawad Ahmad, Law Officer, NADRA. Nemo for the respondent

Date of hearing: 22.09.2025

JUDGMENT

SABIT ULLAH KHAN, J.- This single judgment in the instant appeal shall also decide connected R.F.A No. 122- M/2022 titled “Assistant Director NADRA & others Vs Sana Ullah & another”, as both the appeals involve a common question of law and are therefore taken together for adjudication.

2.Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the instant appeal is that the respondent approached the local office of NADRA authority seeking correction in his family tree where allegedly his son in laws, grandsons and granddaughters have been shown and entered as his wife and children which request of the petitioner was not honoured by the present appellant therefore, he preferred an application to the learned Consumer Judge, Swat. The learned Judge, Consumer Court sought report from the SHO concerned and on the basis of the said report, the appellant was directed for correction in the family tree of the Sikandar Hayat/* (S.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

respondent while rendering judgment dated 25.04.2022. The appellant has impugned the same before this Court under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1997 based on the point of jurisdiction through the instant appeal.

3.In the connected appeal, crux of the case is that the respondent No. 1 approached the NADRA authorities for the issuance of CNIC or Smart Card who gave him a computerized form duly filled in with his particulars but therein it had been remarked that the CNIC of his brother has been blocked by the order of the Court and due to such remarks, no gazetted officer was ready in his locality to attest his form which is otherwise, a mandatory requirement for the issuance of a CNIC or Smart Card to a citizen. The respondent No. 1 therefore approached the leaned Judge Consumer Court for the redressal of his grievance wherein the appellants filed their reply and raised the point of jurisdiction however the learned Judge, Consumer Court Swat, vide judgment dated 24.10.2022 directed the appellants to issue fresh computerized form to the respondent No. 1 omitting the remarks regarding the CNIC of his brother. This judgment has also been impugned by the appellants / NADRA under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1997 on the ground of jurisdictional defect before this Court.

Sikandar Hayat/* (S.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

4.The main contention of the appellants / NADRA authority in both these connected appeals with regard to the jurisdictional defect is that according to section 9 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 (the Ordinance) every citizen of the state has an obligation to get himself registered with the NADRA authorities attaining the age of 18 years and under section 30 of the Ordinance, the CNIC issued to him is the proof of his registration and citizenship and therefore, neither the CNIC can be termed as product as contemplated in section 2(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1997 nor the NADRA which functions as a statutory body under the mandate of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, can be given the status of a trader / manufacturer etc.

5.Heard and record perused.

6.The pivotal question is whether disputes concerning correction of family particulars or issuance of CNIC and alike issues arising out of the functions of NADRA fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court under the Consumer Protection Act, 1997 or otherwise.

7.Bare reading of section 2(c) of the Act elucidates “product” as goods manufactured, produced, or made for sale. Similarly, “services” are defined as services made available to potential users of goods/products for Sikandar Hayat/* (S.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

consideration. A CNIC, however, is neither a good manufactured for sale nor a service provided for commercial consideration. Rather, it is a statutory document issued under Section 30 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, in discharge of sovereign and administrative functions of the State. Moreover, section 9 of the Ordinance makes registration with NADRA a statutory obligation for every citizen attaining 18 years. Issuance or correction of CNIC is thus a matter of legal compliance, not consumer choice.

Furthermore, NADRA performs its functions under statutory mandate, not as a trader or service provider. The Consumer Court, which is the creation of the statute, cannot assume jurisdiction over matters specifically regulated by another special law.

8.In addition to the preceding paras, it is settled principle that when two statutes overlap, the special law as in this case, the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, prevails over the general law presently the Consumer Protection Act, 1997 in respect of the subject matter. Therefore, disputes relating to NADRA”s exercise of statutory powers cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Court.

9.Consequently, it is held that the learned Consumer Court has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints with regard to questions related to the services of the Sikandar Hayat/* (S.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

NADRA authorities towards the public. This Court has also passed a judgment on the same analogy with regard to the NADRA authority in R.F.A No. 33-B of 2022 titled as “Assistant Director NADRA Vs Muhammad Taseer Khan’ wherein it has been held as under:

“...There is no denial to the fact that the learned trial court dealt with the matter comprehensively and that the statements of all concerned were recorded, but it went missing from the notice of the learned trial judge to adjudicate upon, as to whether the court had jurisdiction under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997, and as to whether the NADRA i.e the appellant falls within the contemplation of the Act. I scanned the relevant law with valuable assistance of learned counsel for the parties, but I could not come across any instance, where it could be confirmed that the Consumer Protection Court had the jurisdiction in the matter.”

Further ahead in the same judgment, it has been held that:

“For redressal of the grievance a mechanism has been provided where the respondent is to be appear, and the concerned authorities are to adjudge his status by involving various agencies in verification for this particular purpose, especially for all, who are in possession of the POR Cards, Regional Verification Boards have been constituted with the sole purpose to scrutinize the credentials and claim of the aggrieved persons. When such is the state of affairs, I am lurking no doubt in mind that the learned trial Court fell in to error while determining the status of the petitioner as a citizen of this country. As, for the respondent an alternate remedy is available and when a forum has been created for redressal of grievance of all concerned, then instead of taking the burden on its shoulder, it is essential for the courts to provide an opportunity to the aggrieved person to approach the competent forum for the redressal of his grievance and, in case, he fails to get his grievance redressed, that too, after appearing before the competent authority, then it is for the aggrieved person to approach the court which is having jurisdiction in the matter.”

Sikandar Hayat/* (S.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

10.Needless to mention that the grievance of the respondent in the connected matter R.F.A No. 122-M of 2022 has already been redressed however, the respondent of the instant appeal is not left without remedy and he is directed to resort to the statutory mechanism devised under the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 for the redressal of his grievance.

11.In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned findings of the learned Consumer Court in both the connected matter are hereby set aside and the appeals are therefore, disposed of in the above terms.

Announced.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sikandar Hayat/* (S.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN