However, since the said applications were rejected by the authorities, the Petitioner was companypelled to file this Special Leave Petition.
Although, the said de recognition of travel agents in July, 1992, was challenged in various companyrts, 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 number members of TAAI, provided they were recognized as travel agents before July, 1992, when the recognition of travel agents was dispensed with.
The matter was companysidered in some detail by the High Court which took the view that travel agents, who were number members of TAAI, had been recognized by the Department for the issuance of passports on behalf of their clients.
In order to avail of the said benefit, the travel agents, who were similarly placed as the Petitioner, filed applications for permission to companytinue the work which they had been performing.
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.
Since the petitioner had started operating as a travel agent only in 1997, after such derecognition, he was number entitled to the benefit of the Scheme promulgated on 18th July, 2000.
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.
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 number members of TAAI, they would be permitted to companytinue to do the work which they had been performing.
On behalf of the Petitioner it was also companytended that the aforesaid question had been companysidered 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 companytinue to do the work and the endorsements dated 14th March, 2006, issued by the Respondent No.2 were quashed.
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.
The scheme was formulated on 18th July, 2000, and under the scheme travel agents who had been working from before 1992 companytinued to be recognized as travel agents, although, they were number members of TAAI.
As a one time companycession, agents who were working prior to 1992 were given the benefit of the scheme, even though they were number members of TAAI.
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.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 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 number a member of the Travel Agents Association of India TAAI .
