SYED ASHWAQ AHMEDversusJT. SECRETARY AND CHIEF PASSPORT OFR. AND ANR.

                       [2010) 11 S.C.R. 106


A                    SYED ASHWAQ AHMED
                                 V.
      JT. SECRETARY AND CHIEF PASSPORT OFR. AND
                               ANR.
         (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22936 of 2008)
B
                      SEPTEMBER 09, 2010
          [ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.)

        Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Travel agents
C de-recognized from carrying out passport work in July, 1992
  - Fresh scheme promulgated on 18th July, 2000, whic/1
  provided a one-time concession to travel agents provided they
  were working as travel agents from before July, 1992 -
  Petitioner, who commenced business as a travel agent in
D 1997, was denied the benefit of the scheme promulgated on
  18th July, 2000 - He filed writ petition which was dismissed
  by the High Court - On appeal, held: Since the policy of
  recognizing travel agents for the purpose of carrying out
  passport work was discontinued after July, 1992, the petitioner,
E who had begun his travel agency much after July, 1992, was
  not entitled to the benefit of the fresh guidelines issued on
  18th July, 2000 - No reason for interference with the order of
  High Court.

       In July, 1992, travel agents, who were not members
F of the Travel Agents' Association of India (TAAi), were de-
  recognized from carrying on the work of submitting
  passport applications and receiving the same on behalf
  of their clients. The said de-recognition of travel agents
  for purpose of passport work was challenged in various
G courts, including the Supreme Court, whereafter a fresh
  scheme was promulgated on 18th July, '2000, by
  providing a one-time concession to travel agents, who
  were not members of TAAi, provided they were working
  as travel agents from before July, 1992.
H                              106
  SYED ASHWAQ AHMED v. JT. SECRETARY AND               107
           CHIEF PASSPORT OFR.
     The petitioner, who was not a member of TAAi, but        A
commenced business as a travel agent only from 1997
i.e. he was not recognized as a travel agent prior to July,
1992, was denied the benefit of the scheme promulgated
on 18th July, 2000. He filed a writ petition seeking a
Mandamus upon the respondents to allow him to perform         8
passport work as a travel agent. The writ petitidn was
dismissed by the High Court.

    Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court

     HELD: The reasoning of the High Court that the           C
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 said scheme
and does not require any interference. Once the policy
of recognizing travel agents for the purpose of               D
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,        E.
by providing a one-time concession for all travel agents
who were working prior to 1992, even though they were
not members of TAAt. The pt :!cy is neither irrational nor
unreasonable and appears to have been made to
streamline the system of applying for and receiving
                                                              F
passports. [Paras 8, 9) [111 ·A-F]

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
22936 of 2008.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 23.6.2008 of the High     G
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. No. 14078 of 2007.

    Manohar Lal Sharma. Debasis Misra for the Petitioner.

     D.K. Thakur, Deepak Jain, Yogita Yadav, Asha G. Nair,
Anil Katiyar for the Respondents.                             H
    108      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. This Special Leave Petition is
    directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd June, 2008,
    passed by the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No.14078 of 2007,
    dismissing the Petitioner's writ petition seeking a Mandamus
8   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
C 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
o 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, guidelines were
E 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
F 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
G Special Leave Petition.

         3. On behalf of the l'etitioner it was also contended that
    the aforesaid question had been considered by the Karnataka
    High Court and had been decided in Writ Petition No.40360
H
  SYED ASHWAQ AHMED v. JT. SECRETARY AND                      109
   CHIEF PASSPORT OFR. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
of 2004, and, ultimately, the impugned restrictions came to be       A
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.
                                                                     B
      4. According to the Respondents, however, the system of
recommending travel agents to carry on the work of applying
for and receiving passpor!~ 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,    C
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 mambers of
TAAi, provided they were recognized as travel agents· before
July, 1992, when the recognition of travel agents was dispensed
with. Since the petitioner had started operating as a travel agent   D
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           E
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 fileu 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                  F
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,             G
although, they were not members of TAAi. 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        H
    110     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A 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.
B
        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
C an accredited agent, notwithstanding the fact that he was not a
  member 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
D 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
E 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
F perform the work of submitting applications on behalf of Indian
  citizens applying for passports.

       7. As indicated herein before, the Respondents took the
  stand that when the entire system of recognizing travel agents
  to deal with passport work had been withdrawn in February,
G 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
H on the question as to whether the Petitioner had been unjustly
  SYED ASHWAQ AHMED v. JT. SECRETARY AND                      111
   CHIEF PASSPORT OFR. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
prevented from carrying on business as travel agent since he         A
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     B
with the 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,     c
was not entitled to the benefit of the fresh guidelines which came
to be issued on 18th July, 2000, by providing a on~-time
concession for al! 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 D
been
  I
      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 E
travel agents who were 11ot members 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 F
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.
                                                                     G
B.B.B.                                          SLP dismissed.



                                                                     H