C.W.P. No.2902 of 2008 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2902 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17 - 10 - 2008 M/s New Royal Travel Advisor ....Petitioner v. Union of India and another ....Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ravi Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. C.M.No.13802 of 2008 C.M. is allowed. Exemption granted as prayed for. C.M.No.13803 of 2008 C.M. is allowed. Documents Annexures A-1 and A-2 are taken on record. C.W.P.No.2902 of 2002 The present writ petition has been preferred by M/s New Royal Travel Advisor through its sole proprietor Smt.Sunita. In the present petition, quashing of order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the Regional C.W.P. No.2902 of 2008 (O&M) [2] Passport Officer, Sector 34, Chandigarh has been prayed. Petitioner has also prayed that guidelines issued by the Government of India with regard to recognition of travel agency be also quashed. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is that she is the sole proprietor of M/s New Royal Travel Advisor and she is engaged in the business of facilitating the travel of people to abroad. It has been stated that Ministry of External Affairs earlier had the policy for recognising different travel agencies throughout the country which were recognised to deal with different Regional Passport offices in the country. Subsequently, system of recognition of travel agencies was dispensed with for passport services and all passport agents were permitted to deal with by all Passport offices like any member of the public. Petitioner on 13.2.2001 served a legal notice Annexure P-2, in which she called upon the Regional Passport Officer, Sector 34, Chandigarh to allow the petitioner to deal with the office of respondent No.2. Aggrieved against the same petitioner preferred Civil Writ Petition No.12801 of 2001 whereby the respondents were directed to consider the legal notice and decide the same by passing a speaking order. The request was declined vide Annexure P-3 on the ground that her case is not covered by the guidelines of the Government for recognition of the travel agencies. On 18.7.2000, the Government had issued a policy decision Annexure P-5. This has been also assailed by the petitioner. As per policy decision, only those travel agents who were recognised by IATA and were members of Travel Agents Association of India were to be considered for recognition by the Regional Passport Offices. It has been contended before us that the petitioner had earlier C.W.P. No.2902 of 2008 (O&M) [3] filed Civil Writ Petition No.38 of 1999 which was allowed by this Court on 18.11.1999. Order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.38 of 1999 preferred by the petitioner was relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.8349 of 2000 `M/s Paul Travels (Regd.) v. Union of India and others' (Annexure P-4). It was held therein that the instructions issued by the respondents cannot be made applicable as application of the petitioner was submitted before the issuance of instructions Annexure R-1. It was held that it is settled law that executive instructions cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. We have perused the policy Annexure P-5. It has been contended before us that instructions Annexure P-5 which contained the policy are arbitrary and are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner on Annexure P-4 a decision of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.8349 of 2000. It has been contended that it has been held by this Court in Annexure P-4 that executive instructions cannot be made applicable retrospectively. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record procedure for becoming member of the IATA. Before any body is made member of IATA, he is evaluated regarding IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) which is an internationally accepted evaluation system designed to assess the operational management and control systems of an airline and person acting on behalf or with an airline. IATA also overseas the accreditation of Audit Organisations. Therefore, the policy of insisting that a travel agent should be member of IATA is reasonable and to ensure quality dispension to persons who have to deal with a travel agent. IATA not only do accreditation but also assess and evaluate travel agents and prescribes adherence to recommended practices so that the persons dealing C.W.P. No.2902 of 2008 (O&M) [4] with the travel agents can have quality assurance. Besides members of IATA, members of Travel Agents Association of India (TAAI) have been also held eligible for the recognition. The argument that instructions Annexure P-5 cannot be applied retrospectively is misplaced. Clause II of the instructions Annexure P-5 reads as under:- “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, the new non-TAAI recognised Travel Agent would be added to the earlier list in future. As per the policies the authorities would forward the list of all the earlier recognised travel agents who are not members of TAAI to the state police authorities for verification of the antecedents of agents/managers. In case there is any adverse or ambiguous police verification report, the recognition of these travel agents would be withdrawn forthwith.” Therefore, we find that the present writ petition is misconceived. The policy is well justified and allow also those travel agents who were earlier recognised, even if they were not members of TAAI. The argument that in the earlier writ petition it was held that executive instructions cannot be applied retrospectively to the case of the petitioner cannot be accepted as Clause 2 of the instructions Annexure P-5 reproduced above categorically state that all the travel agents who are at present recognised by the Passport Office under the previous dispensation C.W.P. No.2902 of 2008 (O&M) [5] would continue to be recognised even if they are not members of TAAI. In the preliminary objections to the written statement, it has been also stated that all travel agents who were recognised by passport office prior to July 1992 will continue to be recognised even if they are not members of TAAI or TAFI. After stating so in the preliminary objections, it has been further stated as under:- “It is submitted that the members of TAAI and TAFI who are recognized by IATA are recognised and established travel agents and can be depended upon to have thoroughly checked the application forms and authenticity of documents. Moreover, IATA had its own stringent criteria for grant of recognition and the member Travel Agents of TAAI are also IATA members and are given membership of the TAAI only after they have been IATA members for at least one year. There is a rigorous screening procedure that is followed before a Travel Agent is admitted as a member of TAAI.” Since the guidelines formulated by the respondents are justifiable and have been adopted for smooth functioning and better operations of the Department and was for convenience of all those who interact with travel agents, we find that prayer of the petitioner that guidelines be quashed, cannot be accepted. However, the case of the petitioner is covered under Clause II of the instructions (Annexure P-5), no directions, as sought by the petitioner, are called for. Consequently, we C.W.P. No.2902 of 2008 (O&M) [6] dispose off the present writ petition by upholding the instructions (Annexure P-5) and direct the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner as to whether same is covered under Clause II of the instructions (Annexure P-5) or not. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) JUDGE JUDGE October 17, 2008. RC