P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

LARI, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed by one Nazir Muhammad whose case is that he holds a power of attorney from one Abdul Rasul B. Damani for the purposes of applying and obtaining a passport from the Passport Office, that he is a passport agent whose business is to present applications and obtain passports for persons in tending to go out, that the petitioner approached the Passport Office with an application on behalf of Abdul Rasul B. Damani for issue of a passport but the Passport Officer refused to permit him to enter the premises of the Passport Office or entertain application on behalf of Abdul Rasul B. Damani and that in doing so the respondent No. 1 acted under a notification issued by the Passport Office and notified in the "DAWN" which runs as follows :- " New rules for passports announced Applications for passports will not in future be enter tained by the Passport Offices through the passport agents who are not registered with the International Air Transport Association, says a Press note issued in Karachi yesterday. Applications for passports (both international and special for Bharat) should, therefore, be submitted to the passport offices in person or through a servant or relation or by registered post. In case the application is tendered through the post, it should be accompanied by a crossed postal order covering the passport. The postal order should be made payable in favour of the Passport Officer concerned." In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it was alleged that previously the Passport Office used to deal with so-called passport agents but it was found that the system was misused and accordingly framed rules which were duly notified in the "DAWN" dated 24th September 1955. It is the same announcement which has been challenged by the petitioner. The counter affidavit however alleged that the petitioner has no right to file this petition as no legal or natural right of the petitioner had been infringed. In view of the submissions made at the Bar the first point that requires consideration is whether the Passport Act applies to the citizens of Pakistan, The contention of Mr. A. S. Farooqi appearing on behalf of the respondents is that passports are issued to citizens of Pakistan for travel abroad while the Passport Act, 1920 deals with passports required for entry into Pakistan. Passports for travel abroad are issued to citizens of Pakistan not under the Passport Act, 1920 but ill exercise of prerogative right enjoyed by the Head of the State. Reliance was placed in this connection on case V. G. Row v. The State of Madras (A I R 1954 Mad. 240). This case no doubt supports the contention of the learned counsel but after careful consideration we have come to the conclusion that this case was not rightly decided. A citizen who goes out for travel abroad has necessarily to return and he cannot return in view of the provisions of Passport Act, 1920 unless he is possessed of a passport. Such a passport has to be issued under the Passport Act, 1920. It is an elementary principle of construction that intention of the Legislature .is to be gathered from the language used and import of the language used must be given full effect to unless there is something in B the context to the contrary. Section 3 (2) of the Passport Act is in the following words :- "Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may:- (a) prohibit the entry into Pakistan or any part thereof of any person who has not in his possession a passport issued to him ; (b) prescribe the authorities by whom passports must have been issued or -renewed, and the conditions with which they must comply, for the purposes of this Act ; and (c) provide for the exemption, either absolutely or oil any condition, of any person or class of persons from any provision of such rules." Rules under this enactment were originally framed by Government of India by means of Notification No. 1384-G dated 7th September 1921. Rule 3 laid down that no person proceeding for any place outside India shall enter British India by sea or by air or by land unless he is in possession of a passport. The word 'person' was wide enough to include a citizen. It has been noted that section 3 (2) (c) authorises the Government to exempt any person from the operation of the Rules framed under rule 3(1). Under rule 5 (1) certain persons were exempted from the operation of rule

3. The exempted persons included bona fide Muhammadan pilgrims returning from Jeddah or Basra. These Muhammadan pilgrims were obviously citizens of British India who used to go to Saudi Arabia for performance of Haj. With the establishment of Pakistan certain rules were framed ill 1955 by means of Notification No. P. V. 1-4/1/51, dated 2nd May 1955. Rule 3 lays down that subject to certain provisions no person pro ceeding from any place outside Pakistan shall enter Pakistan by sea, by air or by land unless he is in possession of a passport. Rule 5 proceeded to exempt certain persons from the purview of rule

3. This included persons returning from pilgrimage alit in possession of pilgrim Pass issued by a competent authority is well known that citizens pro ceeding to Hejaz for Haj or to Iraq rot visit to shrines are allowed to go on the basis of pilgrimage passes. These persons were exempted from the operation of rule

3. If citizens were (not ?) hit by the provisions of the Passport Act, 1920 and the rules made thereunder there was no meaning in exempting a class of citizens from the operation of the Act. The language of the Act and the Rules made thereunder as well as the category of persons exempted definitely establish that even if a citizen wanted to enter Pakistan he will have to be in possession of a passport. No doubt a passport is primarily a docu ment enabling a citizen to proceed abroad under the protection of the State but it is also a document which enables the holder thereof to return to his land. Vie have therefore come to the conclusion that there is no force in the contention of the respondents that the Passport Act, 1920, did not apply to citizens of Pakistan. With a written constitution in force it is futile to talk of prerogative of the Head of the State. The rights and privileges of the Head of the State and other functionaries of the Government have been fully laid down in the Constitution and nobody howsoever high can claim a right or privilege which is not conceded to him by the provisions of the Constitution. Rule of law would be more easily established in this land if the false notion of any prerogative is buried deep. The next submission on behalf of the respondents was that the announcement dated 2401 September 1955 published in "DAWN" amounted to rules framed under the Passport Act, 1920 and should be held to 'be validly made. Rule framing power is conferred on 'the Central Government by section 3 (1 i of Act XXXIV of 1920. It says : "The Central Government may make rules requiring that persons entering Pakistan shall be in possession of passports, and for all matters ancillary or incidental to that purpose. Section 3 (4) requires that all rules made under this section shall be published in the Official Gazette, and shall thereupon have effect as if enacted in this Act. It is clear that the Rules can only be made by the Central Government and they can take effect after notification in the Gazette. The so-called rules embodied in the announcement were admittedly not published in the Gazette and there is nothing on the record to show as to the authority which made it. These rules if otherwise valid call take effect only from the date of publication in the Gazette. They have not yet so far been gazetted and as such are of no legal effect. The necessity of rules as to the procedure for making application for passports is obvious. When a power is conferred the exercise of it must be regulated by definite rules. It is not open to a mere official to behave in any manner that he likes. The Central Government must frame rules governing the manner in which applications have to be made and the procedure to be followed in entertaining, granting or refusing passports. The last contention raised on behalf of the respondents however has force. It is to the effect that the petitioner has not shown that any legal right of his has been infringed or that he has been directly affected by the refusal to entertain the application of his client Abdul Rasul B. Damani. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Power of Attorney Act VII of 1882. Section 2 is in point. It says:-- "The donee cf a power of attorney may, if he thinks fit, execute or do any assurance, instrument or thing in and with his own name and signature, and his own seal, where sealing is required, by the authority of the donor of the power ; and every assurance, instrument and thing so executed and done, shall be as effectual in law as if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power in the name, and with the signature and seal, of the donor thereof." This section simply means that the ac of the donee shall be deemed to be the act of the donor. It does not lay down that a third person is bound to deal with the donee as a E representative of the donor. Attention was also invited to case Ravulu Subba Rao and others v. Commissioner of Income tax, Madras (A I R 1956 S C 604), This case is authority for the proposition that "every person who is sui jut-is has a right to appoint an agent for any purpose whatever, and that he can do so when tie is exercising a statutory right no less than when he is exercising any other right." But there is no discussion as to whether a third person is bound to deal with the agent. The position would be quite different if a statute authorises a person to act through an agent in a particular matter. In such a case any authority under that Act would have to deal with the agent. No such right is conferred by the Passport Act or the rules framed under it. Refusal to entertain an application has affected the client of the petitioner and not the petitioner himself. If this writ petition would have been quite different. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner that his right to carry on the business of a passport agent has been affected by the refusal of the respondents to deal with him as such an agent and that the respondents have refused permission to the petitioner to enter the premises of the Passport Office. The petitioner may have a right to carry on his profession of a passport agent but he cannot claim to do so on the premises of a third person without his consent or permission. A some what similar question arose in case Muhammad Yasin v. The District Magistrate, Kanpur and another (A I R 1954 All. 317). Here a petition writer was refused permission to enter the premises of a Collectorrate. The petition writer claimed that his right of carrying on profession has been interfered with. The learned judges observed that the petition writer had no right to enter the premises without the permission and this was no infringement of his right as he can carry on his profession of petition writer outside the premises a somewhat similar question arose In re : Nagalingam Servai and others (A I R 1952 Mad. 834). We are in agreement with the observations made in these cases and have come to the conclusion that the petitioner in the absence of a licence or rule giving him that right could not claim right to enter the premises and as such no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. Although we feel that the Passport Office has not acted in a legal way we have no option but to reject the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show that any right of his has been infringed. The petition there fore fails and is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. A. H. Petition dismissed.