AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—The issuance of passport is regulated by the Passport Act 1967 which in Section 17 provides that, "A passport or travel document issued under this Act, shall at all times remain the property of the Central Government". The passports are to be issued by the Passport Officer appointed under the Act. The Act does not contemplate any agent of the Passport Officer issuing the passport or doing anything in relation to the passport. It does not contemplate the Central Government appointing agents to perform any of the functions in relation to the passports which are issued under the Act. There is no provision in the Act for allowing any agents appointed by individuals to deal with the Passport Office and on whom, any rights have been conferred by any of the provisions of the Act.
Some time prior to 24.7.1992 the Central Government had by administrative orders, and not under any statutory scheme accorded recognition to certain Travel agents and had allowed them to deal with the Passport Office on behalf of the clients of such travel agents. The scheme prior to its amendment on 24.7.1992, enabled the travel agents who had received recognition from the concerned State Passport Office to act on behalf of their clients to submit applications to the Passport Office and also receive back from the Passport Office the passport when issued. By the circular issued on 24.7.92, by the Central Government which came to be impugned by the Association of Travel Agents in the writ petition out of which these Writ Appeals arise, the facilities that had been accorded to the recognised travel agents for receiving the passport for and on behalf of their clients, was withdrawn. At the same time, persons who were permitted to deal with the Passport Office, were now to be all travel agents, and not merely those who had been recognised by the Government earlier under an Administrative Scheme.
The Writ Petitioner contended inter alia, that their clients did not normally pay the full fee payable to them at the time they engaged their services; that nearly 50% of the fee would remain unpaid till the passport was actually issued and that balance of fee was collected from the clients only at the time of delivery by the agent to his client of the passport; that the extension of the class of persons who could deal with the passport office was in violation of the right of the Petitioners, who according to them, constituted a clearly demarcated class, which alone could deal with the passport office on behalf of the applicants for passport; and that, the change in the scheme was wholly irrational inasmuch as it did not serve the object sought to be achieved.
These submissions having found favour with the learned single Judge, the amendment to the administrative scheme effected by the circular of 24.7.92 was quashed by him with the further direction in the last paragraph of the order that
The Respondents shall continue to hand over to the Petitioners passports of the persons whose applications are deposited by the Petitioners as it has been done hitherto, instead of sending them directly by registered post to the applicants themselves.
The Central Government was also directed to pay the coats of the writ Petitioners.
Having perused the judgment of the learned single Judge and after hearing counsel, we are unable to approve the reasons set out in the order under appeals for quashing the impugned circular.
The vital fact that the passport is the property of the Central Government has been completely omitted from consideration in the impugned order of learned single Judge. The Passport is not the property of even the applicant to whom it is ultimately issued, much less can it be the property of the agent who may have been engaged by the citizens to submit the applications for passport. The monies which the agent may earn from his client by way of fees are not required to be guaranteed by the Government, and the Passport Act certainly does not require the Government to provide income to people who choose to engage themselves in the trade of travel agents and who undertake to submit the papers to the Passport Office on behalf of the clients.
As to the mode by which the delivery of the passport should be effected, that is a matter which it is entirely for the Government to decide, so long as the mode is fair and reasonable. Neither the citizen who applies for the passport nor the agent engaged by him can have any say in the matter. The agent here certainly has no standing at all to contend that the Government is bound to deliver the passports in respect of the persons whose applications had been delivered through that agent, to that agent only. If the Government chooses to modify the regulations or even the instructions concerning the manner in which the persons applying for passport are to deal with the Passport Office, that is a matter which is well within the realm of policy which the Government is free to adopt having regard to the circumstances which it considers to be relevant. It is not required to consult the travel agent to whom it had earlier accorded recognition in the matter of as to how the passport should be delivered to the applicants. It is also not required to issue any notice to these agents with regard to any change that it proposes to introduce with regard to the manner in which the passports issued by the Passport Office are to be delivered to the applicants.
It is entirely for the Government to decide as to whether the change in the mode of delivery of the passport subserves the object intended to be achieved by it, namely, to minimise to the extent possible, the possibility of fraud being committed and passport being obtained by fictitious persons. If in the view of the Government, it is considered necessary in the light of the past experience that there is a greater degree of safety and a lesser chance of misuse or fraud, by having the passports delivered to the applicant at the address furnished in the application, it is a matter which is well within the jurisdiction of the Government to decide and it is not for the Court to direct the Government as to how it should deliver the passport to those who applied for it. The provision made by way of amendment to ensure that the passports issued to the applicants are sent to them only by registered post, so that there is an opportunity to verify as to whether the person who has furnished an address in the application, in fact, is living in that address and chance for the post-man who delivers the document to see for himself physically the person to whom the passport is required to be delivered, is certainly a provision which is rational and relevant to the purpose of reducing the possibility of fraud and the misuse of the facility of the passport, by persons arranging to obtain the same in the name of fictitious persons or by furnishing fictitious addresses.
A matter which concerns the issuance of passport including the mode of its delivery, is a matter which is normally to be left to the discretion of the Government with the Court''s interference being minimum, unless the action of the Government is so glaring has to be characterised as wholly bereft of reason and having an injurious impact on the right of the citizen. Here, the matters complained of do not in any way affect the citizens / applicant who seeks the passport. In fact, no applicant for a passport is before us. Those who came to Court are merely persons who have engaged themselves in an avocation from which they derive income, and their concern is not with the public interest involved in the issuance of passport or the right of the citizens to secure the passport, but solely with the amount of income that they can secure by offering to act as the agent of those who apply for passports.
The Passports Act does not provide for recognition of travel agents to whom the Government owes any obligation. If for the purposes of convenience, the Government had in the past allowed certain travel agents to deal with the Passport Office on behalf of those applying for passports such past dealings does not create in those agents a right to continue as such agents for ever, nor does it create in them a right to insist on a particular scheme being preserved for all time to come. It also does not clothe them with any right to object to the modification that any be effected in the scheme with regard to the manner in which the passports would be delivered to all applicants. It is necessary to stress what is already obvious that the rule framed by the Government with regard to the mode of delivery of the passport is not a rule intended for any particular Section of the citizens or for any group of travel agents with whom it would deal. It is a rule on general application. It applies to each and every applicant for a passport and every applicant for a passport may receive the passport only in the mode prescribed by the Government, namely, the passport being sent to the applicant by way of registered post with acknowledgment due or delivered to the applicants in person.
Learned senior counsel for the Respondent in W.A No. 1258 of 92 submitted before us that she no longer wishes to advance the case that had been advanced before the learned single judge with regard to the prejudicial impact of the amendment on the income and the assurance of such income to the Respondent / travel agents, and that she also does not contend that there was any promissory estoppel as against the Government. She further submitted that a person who is seeking to obtain the passport in a false name or by furnishing a false address, is more than likely to be present himself at the address when the post-man brings the passport and receive the same, and by merely providing that it shall be delivered through a post-man by way of registered mail, will not solve the problem, in any way. She also submitted that the recognised travel agents, being subject to certain disciplinary control by the passport office are more likely to be responsible and are likely to be more cautious in ensuring that the applicants are in fact real persons and that the information furnished by them is reliable.
As to whether the public interest is served well by the change in the mode of delivery of the passport, is a matter which is primarily for the Government to decide in the realm of policy and the writ Petitioners cannot claim to have any right to be heard in the matter of formulation of the policy, nor, can they claim a right to question the policy on the ground that the policy is not optimally the best and that it will not achieve all that it seeks to achieve. Any policy is at best the result of evaluation and assessment of numerous alternatives and so long as the policy-makers have chosen one plausible alternative, it is not open for the Court to hold that a different alternative ought to have been chosen. It is certainly not for the writ Petitioners to claim a right to sit in judgment over the policy formulated by the Government regarding the mode in which the passport shall be delivered to the applicants for the same.
We are also not persuaded that a person who seeks to obtain a passport by giving a fictitious name or fictitious address, will all that easily get away by his attempt to secure the passport on the basis of such false information even when the document is sent by registered post. There are numerous instances where addresses are furnished which do not exist at all and unless a verification is made, that fact is not brought to light. If a public building or a commercial establishment is given as the place of residence of an individual, that fact can certainly come to light when the post-man goes there to deliver the document to the addressee. If the address is furnished with reference to a vacant plot of land, where no building exist, that fact also would come to light only when an attempt is made to carry the document of the address given. So also, as to whether a particular individual bearing a particular name resides or does not reside at a given address, will come to light when the post-man who is required to deliver the package, goes to the place and makes enquiry. It is not to be assumed that the person who wishes to obtain a passport in fictitious name, will be at the false address that he will have on these till such time the passport arrives through post. While the procedure may not be fool-proof, it nevertheless has the effect of reducing to some extent, the possible abuse to which process may be subject, if no verification at all is made as to the person or the address at which he or she resides.
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that those factors really should not arise for consideration, as the police certification is required to process the issuance of a passport. We may take judicial notice of the fact that the level of efficiency displayed by the police is far below the standard that is expected of them and that continues to be so despite numerous observations on this aspect by several Commissions and by the Courts from the Apex Court to the lowest.
A system which provides for verification on more than one occasions is more likely to trace-out cases of fraud than a system which relies on a check only at one point. The system now devised is in the nature of second check and that certainly serves the purpose of minimising the possibility of fraud and fictitious persons securing passports.
The great importance of passports can never be minimised in a world which is constantly shrinking by reason of rapid advance in technology and the means for communication, as also the modes of travels. The persons committing crime in one country escape into another country by using fictitious passports and this is now a world-wide phenomenon, which despite the efforts of Government all over the world, appears to be in the increase. Crime also is no longer a matter which is domestic in nature. It has assumed international proportions in which things like kidnaps being master-minded by criminals outside the country living in territories from which they may not be easily extradited smuggling in banned goods and even more alarming, narcotic trade, is a cross-border phenomenon and carriers constantly travel across international borders, producing passports which may appear genuine, but may in fact have been spurious. Those facts of life are too well-known to be ignored.
No travel agent or group of travel agents can assert a right and dictate to the Government as to how it should formulate its policy with regard to the issuance of passports and delivery of the same to the citizen. The Country/Security and Public good is a matter for the Government and not for the travel agent who is only concerned with his income.
Learned Additional Solicitor General brought to our notice the fact that the same amendment which had been challenged before this Court, had also been challenged in several other High Courts and that the proceedings in those High Courts had been stayed by the Supreme Court on transfer petitions at the instance of the Union Government. Had the Union Government, instead of doing that, argued the matters in the concerned High Courts, finality would have been reached much earlier and the public interest would have been better served. As a result of the proceedings having been stayed in the High Courts, the matters remained frozen. It was further submitted by the learned Solicitor general that after the dismissal of the transfer petitions by the apex Court, the Government had revised the guidelines with regard to the things that the travel agents may do in relation to the applications for passports. Learned Solicitor, General has placed before us a copy of a letter dated July 18,2000 written by the under Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi to the Regional Passport Officers informing them of the fresh guidelines which the Ministry of External Affairs had issued and which guidelines would be affective from 1.8.2000. The guidelines now issue according to that letter, are the following: -
I. Only those Travel agents who are recognised by IATA and are members of the Travel Agents Association of India (TAAI) would be eligible for recognition by the concerned passport offices for submission of the application form passports or miscellaneous services on production of a letter of authority from the applicant. A list of TAAI member is enclosed.
II. All the Travel Agents who are at present recognised by the passport office under the previous dispensation would continue to be recognised even if they are not members of TAAI. However, no new non-TAAI recognised Travel Agent would be added to the earlier list in future.
The Passport Officer concerned would forward the list of all earlier recognised travel agents, who are not members of TAAI, to the State police authorities for verification of the antecedents of the owners / managers. In case there is any adverse or ambiguous police verification report, the recognition of these travel agents would be withdrawn forthwith.
III. The recognition granted TAAI member Travel Agents to accept and submit passport application forms to the different passport offices is subject to the following conditions;
a) The application forms and original documents, are to be checked thoroughly by these travel agents.
b) The travel agents would be required to assist the applicant for which the Ministry would provide a check list to them.
c) The Travel agents would be permitted to submit passport application forms only with a proper authority letter and would also be ''required to bring the original documents for verification to the RP Os / P Os.
d) Passports for first time applicants would be delivered by registered post or to the applicant only. Passports for miscellaneous services and passports in lieu of expired passport could be delivered to the travel agents with a proper authority letter.
e) The number of passport application forms to be submitted per day per travel agent would be decided by each passport officer depending on local conditions.
f) In case any travel agent recognised by the passport office, whether a member of TAAI or not, is found to be engaged in any malpractices or submits forged documents or a wrong passport application in which there is a major mis-declaration of identity, applications of persons who are abroad, persons with links with terrorists, ISI agents etc., recognition would be withdrawn immediately. In addition, TAAI would be informed to lake further punitive action against the Travel Agent under their own rules.
While the amendment which had been impugned in the writ petitions, had the effect of enabling every travel agent to submit applications to the Passport Office, under the revised guidelines, only those travel agents who are recognised by LATA and who are members of the Travel Agents Association of India, would be recognised for the purpose of dealing with the Passport Office by way of submission of application forms for passports or miscellaneous services subject to their producing letters of authority from the concerned applicants. The class of travel agents therefore is now little narrower than the class which had been allowed to deal with the Passport Office under the amendment which had been impugned. The revised guideline also has taken care to provide that the recognised travel agents who had been recognised by the Passport Office earlier, would continue to be regarded as recognised even after the issuance of those new guidelines. The writ Petitioners therefore can continue to deal with the Passport Office on behalf of their clients.
The travel agents are required to check all the original documents thoroughly before submission, assist the applicant to complete the form correctly and submit the paper to the Passport Office along with the authority letter from the applicant. All these travel agents are also required to conform to the discipline required of them by Clause-(f) of the guidelines which rightly provides that if any of the travel agents is found to be engaged in any malpractices or submits forged documents or wrong passport application in which there is a major mis-declaration of identity, applications of persons who are abroad or persons who have links with the terrorists, ISI agents, etc., recognition would be withdrawn immediately. This part of the guidelines is a welcome addition and was rather conspicuously absent in the amendment which had been issued in the year 1992.
The new guidelines continue to provide that the passports for the first-time applicants would be delivered by registered post or to the applicants only. This requirement, as we have found, is a perfectly reasonable requirement, a requirement which was well within the competence of the Government to prescribe, and is a requirement which furthers the objects of reducing to the extent possible the likelihood of fraud and passports being obtained by persons with fictitious identities or passports being issued in names of non-existent people or at addresses which are either non-existing or false. The applicant for the passport always has a liberty to go to the Passport Office and collect the passport himself.
Learned Additional Solicitor General has also brought to our notice a recent judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, which also has upheld the amendment, which had been struck down by learned single judge.
The mode of delivery of the passport is not a matter which is regulated merely by administrative instruction, but is a part of statutory prescribed form and having a statutory character. The Passport Rules, 1980 in Rule 5, provides that the application for the issue of a passport shall be made in the appropriate form in part I of Schedule III. The form prescribed has an annexure to it, titled, "Passport information Booklet". Paragraph 3 of that booklet, which is part of the statutory prescribed form, reads as under:
Delivery of passports: Passport shall be delivered only to the applicant or despatched by registered post acknowledgement due to the address given in the application form.
Whatever may have been the effect of the administrative scheme for travel agents that had been framed by the Government in the past, it is clear that a citizen may now receive his passport only in person or receive the same by registered post at the address given in the application form.
The directions given by learned single Judge, which we have extracted earlier, is wholly unsustainable. We have held that it is not justified either in law or on facts and it is wholly inconsistent with the statutory requirement. The directions so given must be and is set aside.
So far as the declaration in the order under appeals that the amendment effected to the scheme of recognised travel agent is invalid ,that direction must now be regarded as not of any significance now as that amendment has now been superseded by the new guidelines. So far as the transactions prior to the issuance of the guidelines are concerned, there is no dispute that after the order of learned single Judge, the recognised travel agents had been allowed to function as such, and the order had been complied with.
Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent travel agents submitted that the scheme of recognised travel agent is a scheme which is necessary in the public interest and that the system of according recognition has been continued rightly by the Government under the new guidelines. As already held by us, it is in the realm of policy which the Government is free to make and the policy that it has chosen to frame, is not a policy with which any fault can be found in law. As to whether this is the only proper policy to adopt, is not required to be decided in this case. The finding recorded in the order under appeals that the Government must follow a particular policy, is a direction with we cannot concur. The right to form a policy implies the right to choose one of several alternatives and does not necessarily mean that the policy to be followed is only the policy which is regarded by the Court to be the best.
We, therefore, set aside the order under appeals and allow the appeals with costs throughout. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 13285 and 13286 of 1992 are closed. Counsel''s fee Rs. 5,000/- one set.