SYED ASHWAQ AHMED versus JT. SECRETARY AND CHIEF PASSPORT OFR. AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 106 · Decided: 09-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010) 11 S.C.R. 106 
SYED ASHWAQ AHMED 
V. 
JT. SECRETARY AND CHIEF PASSPORT OFR. AND 
ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22936 of 2008) 
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, 
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 
passports. [Paras 8, 9) [111 ·A-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 
22936 of 2008. 
E. 
F 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.