' The petitioners challenge some order passed by respondent No, 2, which though not communicated then in writing, is said to have been to the effect that their passport Nos. AG-332333 and AF-921916 have been cancelled.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are citizens of Pakistan. They hold residential permits in Tehran (Iran). Petitioner No, 1 is a businessman while petitioner No 2 was serving in a factory. Petitioner No, 1 is stated to have protested against the enhancement of fees in a school which is run by Pakistan and of which respondent No, 2 is ex officio patron. The petitioner also wrote a detailed letter to the respondent No, 2 to the same effect but it remained unreplied.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that in view of the above, the respondent No, 2 planned to victimise the petitioners. The petitioners allegedly wrote about it, a letter to the President of Pakistan and also to respondent No, 2, in which grievances of Pakistanis being victimized by respondent No, 2 were highlighted. They are also stated to have written letters of complaint to other authorities. In retaliation, the respondent No 2, without taking their passports in possession or passing any order in writing, is said to have informed the Iranian authorities that their passports had been cancelled.
4. On the filing of this petition, the learned Deputy Attorney-General was asked by this Court, vide order dated 27th August, 1980, to seek instructions from the respondents. The case was then fixed on various dates in 1980. 1981 and 1982 but the learned Deputy Attorney-General despite his efforts could not get any instructions or information.
5. The facts, as stated above, do go to show that the petitioners have not been intimated in writing, about the cancellation of their passports, which are admittedly in their possession. May be the respondent No, 2 so informed the Iranian authorities just to harass the petitioners so that A would desist from carrying on their campaign against him. The silence of the respondents, also shows that perhaps no such order had been passed. So, the mere intimation by the Iranian authorities may have compelled the petitioners to be concerned and cautious but they did not have to resort to this Court on that basis. Thus in the absence of any order of the respondents, I am not in a position to presume that the passports, which are still in their possession, have been cancelled.
' This petition, in view of the above, shall stand disposed of accordingly.