(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard learned counsel Mr.Tejas Barot for the appellant.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.2.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.917 of 2012.
3. A categorical statement was made by learned counsel Mr.Tejas Barot for the appellant before us that, he is not challenging the policy of the Government which was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The only grievance of the appellant is that the appellant – association is an association of agents who help the persons to get their passport applications submitted in the passport office and the members of the appellant – association should be provided individual `Log-in' facility so that they may submit online applications in their names on behalf of clients.
If the policy of the Government is not challenged on any ground, we do not find any fault with the Government in asking the appellant to submit the application through online and for that they may take help of the agents so that they can submit online applications on behalf of their clients. Mr.Barot further submitted that the submission of application form in the name of agent would not create any hindrance of national security. In our opinion, national security is paramount, no interference is called for.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance of Ground (B) of the memo of appeal, and submitted that, the appellant association have been carrying business as agents for last 50 years and therefore question of their right of livelihood is affected. We are not inclined to accept this submission as, in our opinion, national security requires that online application should be submitted in the name of the person who is applying for the passport in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. We do not find that right of livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is in any way affected.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant has also made a representation which has not been considered by the respondent authority. The learned Single Judge, after considering the matter in detail, has observed in para 39 of the order as under.
“In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the petitions. However, it may be noted that basically the petitioners are not against the introduction of a new system of issuance of passport by setting up Passport Seva Kendras. Their grievance is that they ought to have been integrated as reflected in the communications dated 27th July, 2010 and 19th May, 2010 referred to hereinabove. As to whether or not the members of the petitioner associations can be integrated within the system can only be decided by the respondent No.1. However, it was, and is always open to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent No.1 in this regard, as the respondent No.1 being the policy maker would best be in a position to say as to whether or not the members of the petitioner associations can be integrated in the new system. It is an admitted position that so far the petitioners have not made any representation to the respondent No.1 for redressal of their grievances. In the circumstances, it goes without saying that if the petitioners do make a representation to the respondent No.1, the same shall be considered sympathetically and expeditiously keeping in view the longstanding relationship between them.”
6. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners have still an opportunity to make a representation to the respondent No.1 and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. The passport is a very important instrument which permits an Indian Citizen to travel beyond the country and, therefore, before issuing such important instrument, the authority has to scrutinise the application for passport in detail since it is a matter of national security. It is a fact of common knowledge that large number of persons travel beyond the country on fake passports which are prepared in the name of bogus/dummy persons. In view of this aspect, if the Government decides that the person, who is interested in getting passport, shall file the application in his own name having sufficient details about himself/herself, the same is not prejudicial to anybody. The learned counsel for the appellant could not satisfy us with regard to the contention that how the agent would be benefitted if the application for the passport on behalf of their client shall be made through the agents having the `Log-in' facility in the name of the agents.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge which would call for interference by this Court. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(V.M. SAHAI, J.) (A.J.DESAI, J.) syed/