Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 294 (KAR)

UNION OF INDIA v. ESKAY TOURS AND TRAVELS

2004-04-17

N.K.JAIN, V.G.SABHAHIT

body2004
( 1 ) THE Union of India, Passport Officer and Assistant Passport Officer, bangalore, have has filed these appeals against the order dated 5-7-2001 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 37152/ 2000 C/w 7351/2001 setting aside the impugned orders annexures-H and K dated 7-7-2000 and the letter dated 13-10-2000, annexure-F dated 18-7-2000 and Annexureg the letter dated 28-11 -2000 issued by the 2nd respondent, and directing the respondents to apply the earlier policy which had been existing prior to 24-7-1992. ( 2 ) THE above writ petitions were filed by the respondent-M/s Eskay Tours and Travels, which is a travelling agent dealing in passport matters, being aggrieved by the formulation of policy decision and the issuance of Annexure-F dated 18-7-2000 by the 1st appellant. The respondent challenged the act of the authority restricting the acceptance of the applications for issuance of passports from the recognised travelling agent, as illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that earlier the travelling agents were permitted to file any number of applications for passports and receive the passports accordingly, but without assigning any reasons, annexure-F with regard to the guidelines in respect of filing the applications for passports and Annexure-G reducing the number of applications to be filed from 20 Nos. to 2 nos. per day per travelling agent, have been issued and are liable to be quashed. The learned single Judge, on consideration, allowed the writ petitions vide order dated 5-7-2001. Against that order, this writ appeal has been filed. ( 3 ) SRI N. Devadas, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge has erred in interfering with the withdrawal of facilities without taking note of Annexure-F dated 18-7-2000 issued by the Ministry of external Affairs, which clearly gives the reasons for withdrawal of the facilities given to a travelling agent. ( 3 ) SRI N. Devadas, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge has erred in interfering with the withdrawal of facilities without taking note of Annexure-F dated 18-7-2000 issued by the Ministry of external Affairs, which clearly gives the reasons for withdrawal of the facilities given to a travelling agent. He further submits that the respondent is one of the travelling agents and there are about 163 travelling agents in karnataka alone; that only those travel agents who are recognised by IATA and are members of the Travel Agents Association of India would be eligible for recognition by the concerned passport offices for submission of application forms for passports and that in the circumstances, if all the travelling agents are permitted to file applications, there would be fraud or mischief in getting the passports and hence the revised guidelines restricting the number of applications to be filed have been Issued. The learned single Judge has erred In taking the concept that the travelling agents have right to file any number of applications before the concerned authority for getting the passports ready. He further submits that in similar matter the Andhra Pradesh High Court by its order dated 30-10-2000 passed in W. P. 3594/2000 has not interfered in the matter and so also the Division Bench of the kerala High Court in W. A. No. 1434/1992 dated 28-6-2000 (reported in AIR 2001 kerala 112) upholding the revised policy as well as the decision taken by the Government of India through the Ministry of External Affairs. He also submits that after taking into consideration all the relevant pros and cons and the interest of national security, the communications dated 17-10-2000 and 20-10-2000 have been sent to all the concerned officers of passport in India and so also to the Bangalore Branch office stating that the above policy decision has been implemented. He submits that the learned single Judge has erred in not taking note of the same. It is argued that the Government is competent to take a policy decision from time to time keeping in view the national security, which should not be interfered with, and the order of the learned single judge is liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned single Judge has erred in not taking note of the same. It is argued that the Government is competent to take a policy decision from time to time keeping in view the national security, which should not be interfered with, and the order of the learned single judge is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Sri V. Tarakaram, learned senior counsel assisted by Kalemulla shariff, for the respondents submits that the passport Officer cannot curtail the right of the respondent on his whims, and the service rendered to the persons is not a business, and therefore, the reduction in the number of applications for passports that could be filed from 20 to 2 is bad; that the learned single Judge has rightly interfered in the matter, and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge needs no interference. ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. ( 6 ) THE matter pertains to issue of passports. The passport is a travelling document issued under the Passport Act, 1967 and is required to be issued only by the competent authority prescribed by the Act. The issuance of passport and delivery of the same is a matter to be decided by the Government and any change in the mode of delivery of passport is also within the competence of the Government and same cannot be interfered with unless the action of the government is bad and violation of any provisions of the Act. Otherwise also, a policy decision should not be interfered with unless it is arbitrary, or tainted with mala fides, or violative of any rules. ( 7 ) KEEPING in view the position of law and considering the main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the reduction in the number of application for passports to be filed from 20 to 2 Nos. and the impugned order in that regard is bad, it is seen that earlier the travelling agents could file any number of applications for passports and the number of passports which could be received. and the impugned order in that regard is bad, it is seen that earlier the travelling agents could file any number of applications for passports and the number of passports which could be received. But on an enquiry it was found that some fraud/mischief was being played in obtaining the passports and the passports were being misused by some other persons and in the circumstances, the number of applications for grant of passports to be submitted by an individual travel agent was reduced from 20 to 2 Nos. which cannot be said to be arbitrary without there being any violation. ( 8 ) AS per our directions, the original records were produced. We have perused the same. As seen from the Passport Act, it does not provide for recognition of travelling agent and the Government does not owe any obligation to such travelling agent. However, as per the Passport Manual 2001, only those travel agents who are recognised by IATA and are members of the TAAI are permitted to conduct passport work with the concerned Passport Office which has Jurisdiction in the area where the Travel Agency Is located. A person who intends to obtain passport would apply for the same with the concerned Passports Office and has to receive from it. This facility has now been given to the travelling agents and the travelling agents cannot make an grievance that earlier they were taking 20 applications which number has been reduced to 2. ( 9 ) ON consideration, we find that the respondent has no right to submit any number of applications for obtaining the passport and the restriction in the number of applications to be filed cannot be said to be violative of any right. We are satisfied on perusal of the original records that Joint secretary has approved the Circular on 14-7-2000 and the learned single Judge was not at all justified in holding that circular is not approved by the Joint Secretary. The finding of the learned single Judge that impugned actions are violative of articles 19 (l) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of india is unfounded and as petitioners have failed to aver and prove any such violation of fundamental rights and hence finding of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. The finding of the learned single Judge that impugned actions are violative of articles 19 (l) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of india is unfounded and as petitioners have failed to aver and prove any such violation of fundamental rights and hence finding of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. It is stated that the Passport Office, ministry of External Affairs vide its order dated 11-3-2002, has on an experimental basis proposed to increase the number of applications accepted daily per travel agent to 4 from the current figure of 2 w. e. f. 18-3-2002, however, retaining the upper limit of family applications at 5 as earlier. Be that as it may. In any view of the matter and in the facts of the given case, the order of the learned single Judge is not sustainable and liable to be set aside, and accordingly we set aside the same and dismiss the writ petitions 37152/2000 and 7351/2001. Writ appeals are allowed. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .