REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22936 OF 2008

SYED ASHWAQ AHMED                     … PETITIONER VS.

JT. SECRETARY & CHIEF PASSPORT  OFR. & ANR.     … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

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  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,  

2

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  

3

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  

4

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.  

5

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  

6

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  

7

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  

8

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  

9

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

10