PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has rejected a petition against the federal government’s decision to establish dedicated counters for passport issuance in the offices of the National Database and Registration Authority (Nadra) in 30 areas across the country.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Justice Wiqar Ahmad ruled that “no illegality or material irregularity” was found in the impugned decision of the federal government.

“The same had been taken for the benefit of public at large and for taking the facility on people’s doorstep in far-flung areas and therefore, no exception can be taken to such decision,” the court ruled while rejecting a petition jointly filed by Faisal Rehman and several other employees of the directorate general of immigration and passport.

The petitioners had requested the court to declare illegal and void the government’s decision to establish new passport offices under a joint venture with Nadra.

Rules no ‘illegality or material irregularity’ found in govt’s move

They had argued that the decision was contrary to Rule 4 of the Passport Rules, 2021 and the respondents, including the federal government, might be directed to establish new regional passport offices under that rule.

The petitioners sought the court’s directives of the court for the respondents to revive the proposal and recommendation already given by the immigration and passport office for establishment of eight new regional offices as for that effect the finance department had already approved creation of 120 posts for such offices.

The counsel for petitioners contended that the government decision was against those rules, which provided that the division concerned may, as it deemed to be fit, establish a new passport office within or out of the country.

He added that new passport office under the rules should be established subject to provision of budgetary allocations and creations of posts.

The lawyer also said that passport offices should be established in all districts of Pakistan and all sub-divisions having a population of one million or above.

He argued that the setting up of passport counters in Nadra offices instead of establishing dedicated passport offices was illegal.

The federal government was represented by deputy attorney general Daulat Khan, whereas Nadra assistant director (legal) Shahid Imran Gigyani also turned up in the court.

They said that on the directions of the prime minister, a joint team of senior officials from Nadra and directorate general of immigration and passport, after detailed deliberations, submitted a proposal for the opening of 30 passport processing counters in the areas where full-fledged dedicated passport offices were not available.

According to them, these passport processing counters have been established in Nadra centres based on a joint venture between Nadra and DG of immigration and passport in view of financial constraints and economic conditions of the country.

The bench declared: “So far as violation of Rule 4 of the Passport Rules, 2021, is concerned, it is first to be noted that the same was directory and not mandatory. No consequences for its non-compliance have been provided.”

“The words ‘may’ and ‘as it deems fit’ used in the first sentence of Rule 4 were showing that it was not only directory but it was also giving total discretion to the competent authority for the establishment of new passport offices within and out of Pakistan.

Said Rule 4 cannot be interpreted to be putting any clog on any lawful powers of the competent authority to take any decision regarding establishment of dedicated passport offices or passport counters, in collaboration with Nadra or other government or semi-governmental organisation,” the bench declared in its eight-page detailed judgement authored by Justice Wiqar Ahmad.

It added that it was purely a policy matter where jurisdiction of this court was even otherwise limited as held by the Supreme Court in 2023.

The bench referred to that judgement, which declared that it was not the role of the courts to determine policies, especially those in which the court lacked technical expertise.

It added that the petitioners were not adversely affected by such decision and their counsel had also failed to establish that any fundamental right of the petitioners had been violated by the respondents while taking the impugned decision.

Published in Dawn, November 7th, 2024