IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2086 of 2009 Date of decision: February 10, 2009. Travel Agents Association of Northern India ...Petitioner(s) v. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner is an Association of Travel Agents who claims to have been recognized/authorized to run passport facilitation centres. Their grievance is that respondent Nos.2 & 3 have now decided to entrust the entire work of submission of passport applications to respondent No.4. The petitioner's further grievance appears to be that even when they are statutorily authorized in terms of the provisions contained in the Passport Rules, 1980 to submit the passport applications, nothing is being disclosed to them as to whether or not they shall be allowed to submit the applications and/or run the passport facilitation centres after the proposed contract of entrusting the entire work to respondent No.4 would be finalized. The petitioner alleges that its representation (Annexure P-10) has not been responded so far and similar is the fate of legal notice dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-11). Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length, however, without expressing any views on merits of its claim, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to take cognizance of the legal notice served on behalf of the petitioner and decide the same by passing a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. February 10, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge