1976 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. Inayatullah Khan II for Petitioner. Maulvi Ehsanul Haq for Respondents. Date of hearing : 6th April 1973. The action of the Passport Authorities refusing to consider the application for passports submitted on a form not printed by the Government (Annex. 'A') is under challenge in this writ petition. An averment has been made in the writ petition which is supported by an affidavit and newspaper reports that the forms which should be supplied by the respondents free of cost

"are not available with them in sufficient number to meet the demand of the public and it wastes considerable time of the public as well as they have to incur additional expenses to go to Passport Office and to come hack and then to complete it. The petitioner went on many occasions but failed to got a form from respondent No. 1's office. This position of shortage of forms is too admitted by the respondent No. 1 in his telegram mentioned above. On the other hand it is available to the market everywhere for a petty sum of fifteen to twenty paisas only. The supply of form by the office of respondent No. 1, is merely a Red‑tapism and leads to corrupt practices. The form supplied by the respondents is being sold in the black market for Rs. 2 to 3 and rather more than this amount. There is no justification to enforce this liability by them nor it is tenable under the law. It is merely an abuse of the administrative powers and the Government money too and it has led to great inconvenience to public and to the petitioner as well besides it is a source of malpractice in the respondent's office.

2. In reply to the above assertions, in the report submitted on behalf of the respondents it is mentioned that : "According to the practice in vogue, the applications submitted on the Government printed forms are only acceptable. This is the administrative instruction to all the Passport Offices. The prescribed application forms printed by the Government, are available in the Regional Passport Offices and are made available to the public on demand free of cost from the office counter between 8 a.m, to 10 a.m. No form is distributed after 10 a.m. . . . . . . . . . . . . No specific law or rule existed on this subject . . . . . . . ." It appears from the above two questions that the averments made in the petition with regard to the non‑availability of the forms in the respondent's office at times and then the circumstances leading to Red‑tapism and malpractices have not been denied. I have intentionally avoided questioning the Deputy Assistant Director with regard to the allegation of malpractices which would require detailed enquiry. But on my question with regard to the availability of the form he has rot denied that sometimes it is not available in the office. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to contest the position that if forms are not available in the office then there is no bar to an applicant making an application on a form which is comparable with the Government printed form with regard to the quality of paper and printing, the design and the contents thereof. On an earlier hearing the Deputy Assistant Director had admitted "that then is absolutely no difference between form for an application which has been placed on the record of this petition and one printed by the Government". In view of the above position with regard to the assertions in petition relating to the non‑availability of the forms when the petitioner wanted to submit an application and in view of the fact that there can possibly be no legal objection in these circumstances to the entertainment of an application on the form submitted by the petitioner ; I accept this writ petition and hold that the action of the respondents in refusing to entertain an application on a form 'Annex. A' is illegal and without lawful authority. They shall now entertain the form which' may be returned in original to the petitioner's counsel. There shall be' no order as to costs. Petition allowed.