A D AMIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge summarily rejecting the Special Civil Application filed by the appellant herein. The appellate was granted recognition as Travel Agent for Regional Passport Office Bombay. By the letter dated 31/12/1964 the appellant was informed by the Regional Pass port Officer Bombay that the recognition already accorded to him for dealing with the Regional Passport Office Bombay in matters relating to passport facilities of the appellants clients 4as been extended ky the Government of India until further orders. In 1579 the appellant was called upon to renew his recognition. Since he has not put in any application for renewal his agency was terminated on 27-7-1979 A Special Civil Application came to be filed and subsequently on 27-7-1979 the order of termination of the agency was cancelled by the authorities concerned. On 1-10-1986 a new policy was enunciated by the Government of India with regard to the travel agents who deal with passport facilities. Annexure `F to the Special Civil Application is the letter received by the appellant from the Regional Passport Officer Ahmedabad requesting him to send his fresh application for registration/recognition to the Joint Secretary (CPV) and the Chief Passport Officer or the Under Secretary (PVS) Ministry of External Affairs Government of India Patiala House Tilak Marg New Delhi directly with two copies of it to the Regional Passport Officer Ahmedabad. This letter is dated 17-2-1988 while according to the learned Counsel the policy enunciated for such renewal is dated 1 Subsequently the appellant filed Special Civil Application No. 1212 of 1988 for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash and set aside the directions contained in letter dated 17-2-1988 which is Annexure `F and letter dated 5 which is Annexure `G with a further prayer to direct the respondents to entertain and deal with the passports and other allied matter of the appellants. The learned single Judge of our High Court after adverting to the facts of the case dealing with each of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner therein observed that by the similar recognition the appellant got a right to deal with the Bombay Office only that it cannot be said that the appellant had acquired any vested right so as to deprive the 2nd respondent of his power to call upon the appellant to obtain fresh reCognition under the new rules and that there is absolutely no unreasonable restrictions in the new criterion so as to offend Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and accordingly dismissed the Special Civil Application. The learned Judge has also dealt with the question as to the violation of principles of natural justice as urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner therein and came to the conclusion that there is no such violation of the principles of natural justice in this case. Aggrieved by the decision the appellant has come forward with the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Mr. A. J. Shastri the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the policy (dated 1-10-1986 is not applicable to the case of the appellant that the Government is bound on the principles of estoppel to continue to recognise the appellant to deal with the Passport Office in matters relating to passport facilities. that the policy cannot have a retrospective op ration that the termination of the right of a person who enjoyed the benefit for 30 years just as the appellant herein without any notice is against the principles of natural justice that notice is a must before termination even under the Contract Act that persons who have some adverse records and criminal prosecution against them are given the facility to deal with the Passport Office while the appellant is denied this facility and this attitude spells out arbitrariness or the part of authorities concerned and offends Art. 14 of the Constitution that the grant or recognition can be done only by the Central Government and the refusal to give recognition by the Regional Passport Office at Ahmedabad is contrary to the procedure and the rules and as such the action of the Officer has to be quashed and that the work of the appellant is unblemished for a period of 30 years as on date and as such cancellation of the recognition is against all canons of the principles of natural justice and offends Art. 19 (g) of the Constitution.

(3.) We have carefully considered all these averments made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant herein. In Special Civil Application No. 2403 of 1979 a single Judge of this High Court as early as on 10-9-1979 passed the following order: