Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a travel agent operating in the city of Jalandhar. It is dealing in Air -Passage booking, guiding clients and is engaged in other allied services concerning travel of foreign countries and also making fresh passports. Till 1993, only those travel agent could deal with Passport Office, who were recognised by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, but that requirement was dispensed with sometime in 1993 and all travel agents were given freedom to deal with the Passport Office. This is clearly borne out from letter annexure P2 dated October 5, 1993, paragraph 2 of which reads as under; - "2. The Ministry of External Affairs has dispensed with the system of recognition of Travel Agent for passport services. All travel agents are free just like any member of the public to deal with the passport officers. However, the passport of a first time applicant will be handed over only to the applicant or sent to the applicant's address by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due. For all other services any person with a letter of authority from the applicant can receive the passport except if the passport contains valid visas in which case it shall be given only to the applicant." The petitioner's grievance is that the passport applications submitted by it to the Regional Passport Officer, Jalandhar were rejected by the latter on the ground that the same have not been submitted by a recognised agent.
(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, reference has been made to letter No.VII/415/2/10/2000 dated 18.7.2000 (Annexure R.1) and it has been averred that in view of the revised policy framed by the Ministry of External Affairs, the applications submitted by only those travel agents can be entertained who are duly recognised by the competent authority.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Court in C W.P.No. 38 of 1999 - M/s Royal Travel Advisor, Jalandhar City v/s. The Joint Secretary and Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi and others and argued that rejection of the applications submitted by the petitioner by the petitioner should be declared illegal because the instructions issued vide Annexure R. 1 cannot be made applicable to it.;