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 Petitioners 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 Petitioners 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, 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 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.;