A.V. Savant, C.J.

Heard all the learned counsel; Mr. T.P. Kelu Nambiar (Sr. Advocate) and N. Haridas for the appellants/original petitioners and Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent.

2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 3rd September, 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing a batch of Original Petitions filed by travel agents who were "recognized" in accordance with the guidelines "Consolidated Administrative Criteria for recognition/renewal of Travel Agencies 1991". The said criteria was laid down by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Respondent No. 1, for regulating the issuance of passports under the Passport Act, 1967 read with the Rules framed thereunder. What was challenged in all the Original Petitions was the circular dated 24th July, 1992 issued by Passport Officers in different Cities working under the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. Since the very circular has been challenged in all these appeals, we find it convenient to reproduce it verbatim:

"Ministry of External Affairs has revised the rules relating to recognition of Travel Agencies etc. It has been decided that with immediate effect the entire system of recognising Travel Agents to deal with Passport work stands withdrawn. With immediate effect all Travel Agents shall be free to deposit application forms at Passport offices like any other individual. The completed Passports shall be dispatched to the applicant at the address given in the application form by Registered post acknowledgment due or they will be handed over to the applicant himself. No completed passport shall be handed over to any third person.

These orders come into effect from 27.7.1992"

3. The result of the above circular was that the entire system of "recognised" travel agents to deal with the passport work stood withdrawn with effect from 24th July, 1992. Irrespective of the question whether a travel agent was recognised or not, any travel agent was free to deposit the application form at the passport office like any other individual citizen. It appears that in order to prevent the mischief and the undesirable practices which led to serious security problems, to which we will advert later, a decision was taken that the completed passport shall be despatched to the applicant, at the address given in the application, by Registered post acknowledgement due or in the event of the applicant approaching personally, the passport should be handed over to the applicant. Care was to be taken to ensure that no completed passport was handed over to any third person. This was to prevent one passport being misused by more than one person and the passport of a genuine applicant being misused by some unscrupulous persons who indulge in various crimes.

4. In the petitions that were filed, it was alleged that the first respondent had initially introduced the system of recognising travel agents and guidelines for recognition/ renewal of travel agencies were issued which were effective from 1st June, 1991. It appears that several thousand travel agents who claimed to be eligible to function as such had applied for recognition and initially when the system was introduced, only 750 travel agents were recognised in the country. It was only the recognised travel agents who were authorised to submit applications for passports in the passport office, comply with the necessary formalities and collect the passports themselves on behalf of the applicants. This was done by the recognised travel agents obviously as a regular business charging their fees/ service charges to the applicants. Appellants claim to be rendering useful service to the society and it was alleged that the system was working satisfactorily. They claim to have invested large amounts for establishing offices and providing necessary infrastructure to comply with the guidelines for recognition. They have employed the necessary s