Syed Ashwaq Ahmed vs Jt.Secretary & Chief Passport Ofr.& Anr

No.14078 of 2007, dismissing the Petitioner's 2

writ petition seeking a Mandamus upon the

Respondents to allow him to perform passport

work as a travel agent, though he was not a

member of the Travel Agents' Association of

India (TAAI).

2. The Petitioner claims to have been working as a

travel agent, without being a member of TAAI,

and has been acting on behalf of various

clients since 1997 for submitting applications

for obtaining passports on their behalf. It is

also the Petitioner's case that he was issued

with a Travel Agent Code number by the Passport

Officer, Government of India, in the Ministry

of External Affairs, the Respondent No.2

herein, to whom the applications would be

submitted and after the applications had been

accepted, the same would be processed by the

said Officer upon payment of the prescribed

service charge. According to the Petitioner, 3

guidelines were issued from time to time, but

the said Respondent withdrew the entire system

of recommending travel agents to deal with

passport work and issued instructions that in

respect of travel agents who were present

before the passport office earlier, even if

they were not members of TAAI, they would be

permitted to continue to do the work which they

had been performing. In order to avail of the

said benefit, the travel agents, who were

similarly placed as the Petitioner, filed

applications for permission to continue the

work which they had been performing. However,

since the said applications were rejected by

the authorities, the Petitioner was compelled

to file this Special Leave Petition.

3. On behalf of the Petitioner it was also

contended that the aforesaid question had been

considered by the Karnataka High Court and had been 4

decided in Writ Petition No.40360 of 2004, and,

ultimately, the impugned restrictions came to be

quashed and all travel agents who were carrying on

business earlier became entitled to continue to do

the work and the endorsements dated 14th March,

2006, issued by the Respondent No.2 were quashed.

4. According to the Respondents, however, the

system of recommending travel agents to carry on

the work of applying for and receiving passports on

behalf of their clients was dispensed with in July,

1992. Although, the said de-recognition of travel

agents in July, 1992, was challenged in various

courts, including this Court, the scheme was

ultimately upheld and the Ministry of External

Affairs, Government of India, gave the benefit

thereof to the travel agents who were not members

of TAAI, provided they were recognized as travel

agents before July, 1992, when the recognition of

travel agents was dispensed with. Since the 5

petitioner had started operating as a travel agent

only in 1997, after such derecognition, he was not

entitled to the benefit of the Scheme promulgated

on 18th July, 2000.

5. The matter was considered in some detail by the

High Court which took the view that travel agents,

who were not members of TAAI, had been recognized

by the Department for the issuance of passports on

behalf of their clients. Ultimately, all the

matters which were filed before this Court were

transferred to the various High Courts and fresh

guidelines came to be issued on 18th July, 2000. As

a one-time concession, agents who were working

prior to 1992 were given the benefit of the scheme,

even though they were not members of TAAI. The

scheme was formulated on 18th July, 2000, and under

the scheme travel agents who had been working from

before 1992 continued to be recognized as travel

agents, although, they were not members of TAAI. 6

Based on the aforesaid reasoning, the High Court

held that once the scheme came into operation and a

one-time concession was made in respect of travel

agents who were working from before 1992 but were

not members of TAAI, the Petitioner who commenced

business as a travel agent from 1997, was not

entitled to the benefit of the scheme. The High

Court dismissed the Petitioner's writ petition upon

holding that since the Petitioner was not a member

of TAAI and was not also recognized as a travel

agent prior to 1992, he was not entitled to the

benefit of the scheme promulgated on 18th July,

2000.

6. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned Advocate who

appeared for the Petitioner, urged that since the

Petitioner had been awarded a Code Number by the

Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India,

it must be deemed that he was an accredited agent,

notwithstanding the fact that he was not a member 7

of TAAI. Mr. Sharma submitted that pursuant to the

decision taken by the Ministry which came into

effect from the month of August, 2000, all travel

agents who were then recognized by the passport

office under the previous dispensation, would

continue to be recognized even if they were not

members of TAAI. However, no new non-TAAI

recognized travel agent could be added to the

earlier list in future. Mr. Sharma submitted that

since the Petitioner was an accredited agent, the

aforesaid provisions would govern the Petitioner as

well, despite the fact that he was not a member of

TAAI. He also submitted that when the scheme was

promulgated and the Petitioner was already

functioning as a travel agent, it would be highly

arbitrary to prevent him from continuing to

function as a travel agent in view of the new

policy whereunder only those travel agents who were

members of TAAI would be entitled to perform the 8

work of submitting applications on behalf of Indian

citizens applying for passports.

7. As indicated hereinbefore, the Respondents took

the stand that when the entire system of

recognizing travel agents to deal with passport

work had been withdrawn in February, 1992, the

Petitioner, who was not a member of the TAAI at

that point of time, could not get the benefit of

the scheme floated by the Respondent.

8. The controversy in this Special Leave Petition

hinges on the question as to whether the Petitioner

had been unjustly prevented from carrying on

business as travel agent since he was not a member

of TAAI and, therefore, not entitled to the benefit

of the scheme promulgated on 18th July, 2000. The

reasoning of the High Court that the Petitioner

could not be recognized as a travel agent since he

had started his business in 1997, long after the

system had been withdrawn, is in keeping with the 9

said scheme and does not require any interference.

Once the policy of recognizing travel agents for

the purpose of submitting passport applications and

receiving the same on behalf of a client, was

discontinued after July, 1992, the Petitioner, who

had begun his travel agency after the said date,

was not entitled to the benefit of the fresh

guidelines which came to be issued on 18th July,

2000, by providing a one-time concession for all

travel agents who were working prior to 1992, even

though they were not members of TAAI.

9. The new policy adopted by the Government has

not been questioned by the Petitioner, whose

grievance is confined to his exclusion from the

scheme which came into operation in August, 2000.

We are not, however, inclined to accept the

submissions made on the Petitioner's behalf since a

decision had been taken by the Central Government

to derecognize travel agents who were not members 10

of TAAI, giving a one-time concession to those

travel agents who were not members of TAAI but had

been performing passport work for clients prior to

1992. The policy is neither irrational nor

unreasonable and appears to have been made to

streamline the system of applying for and receiving

passports.

10. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with

the decision of the High Court and the Special

Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

................................................J. (A.K. PATNAIK) New Delhi Dated : 09.09.2010