1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.638 OF 2018

RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD.            ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA      ... RESPONDENT

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.646 OF 2018

M/S. NAWAB TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED      ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA      ... RESPONDENT

AND

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.668 OF 2018

M/S. HIBA EXPORTS INDIA                 ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA      ... RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

These three writ petitions under Article 32 of the

2

Constitution of India have been filed by three Private

Tour   Operators   (PTOs)   challenging   the   communications

dated   31.05.2018   issued   by   the   Ministry   of   Minority

Affairs   rejecting   their   applications   submitted   for

registration of PTOs for Haj 2018.  The applications of

petitioners have been rejected for not fulfilling few

conditions as enumerated in Annexure A of PTO Policy

for Haj 2018.    

2.The Haj Pilgrimage by Muslims all over the world

has been treated as of utmost religious importance and

Muslims   all   over   the   world   have   been   going   for   Haj

Pilgrimage   to   Makkah   and   Madina   for   last   several

centuries.   Until   year   2002,   the   Saudi   Arabian

Government was directly allotting visas for Haj to the

private tour operators and separately allotting quota

of visas for the Haj pilgrims travelling through the

Haj   Committee   of   India.     Thereafter   the   Saudi

Government   started  allotting  one   single  quota  of  Haj

visas  to  the  Government of  India,  who  in  turn  would

allot part of the said quota to the PTOs and retained

3

part of the said quota for itself for allotment through

the Haj Committee of India.

3.The policy for allotment of quota to the private

tour   operators   has   been   issued   by   the   Government   of

India from time to time.   The Policy for registration

of   private   tour   operators   for   Haj   2013   came   for

consideration  before   this  Court  and  this   Court   after

elaborate   consideration   approved   the   Haj   Policy­2013

with certain modifications.  This Court by its judgment

dated 16.04.2013 in   Union of India Vs. Rafique Shaikh

Bhikan, (2013) 4 SCC 699, a pproved the Haj Policy 2013,

Appendix   I   of   the   judgment   contained   the   policy   for

registration of private tour operators – Haj 2013, the

terms and conditions for registration of Private Tour

Operators   (PTOs)   for   Haj   2013   in   Annexure­A,   in

Annexure­B other important instructions/guidelines for

Haj 2013 and in Annexure­C application for registration

as   Private   Tour   Operators   (PTOs).     The   policy   was

initially   directed   to   remain   valid   for   five   years,

i.e., 2013­2017.  The Government of India has extended

the said policy for the year 2018.  The proceeding for

4

formulation of fresh policy for the next five years,

i.e., 2019 onwards is in process, we, however, in the

present writ petitions are only concerned with the Haj

Policy of 2018.

4.After 2013 also, there has been various subsequent

decisions  by   this  Court  while  considering  Haj  Policy

for   subsequent   years,   which   shall   be   noticed   by   us

little   later.     The   Government   of   India   (Ministry   of

Minority   Affairs)   vide   its   circular   dated   09.12.2017

issued policy for Private Tour Operators for Haj 2018.

The applications were invited on or before 05.01.2018.

Annexure  A to the policy was “Terms and Conditions for

Registration of Private Tour Operators (PTOs) for Haj­

2018”.     Annexure   B   contained   “Other   Important

Instructions/Guidelines   for   Haj­2018.   Annexue   C

contained “Application for Registration as Private Tour

Operator  (PTO)” ­  Haj  2018.    All  the  petitioners  in

pursuance   of   the   said   circular   has   submitted   their

applications   for   registration   for   Haj­2018.   After

certain   queries,   separate   communication   dated

31.05.2018   has   been   issued   to   petitioners   refusing

5

registration of them as Private Tour Operators for Haj­

2018, which communication has been challenged.

5.The prayers made in all the writ petitions being

identical, it is sufficient to notice the prayers made

in the Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018. which are to

the following effect:­

“(a)  Declare   that   the   order   dated

31.05.2018 by the respondent is illegal and

unconstitutional   and   consequentially,   issue

Mandamus   to   the   respondent   to   register

petitioner as a PTO for Haj 2018 and allot

appropriate quota;  

(b)Alternatively,   Issue   a   Writ,   order   or

direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding

and   directing   the   respondent   to   grant

registration   to   the   petitioner   as   PTO   for

conducting Haj Tour, 2019;

(c)Issue a Writ, order or direction in the

nature   of   Mandamus   commanding   and   directing

the   respondent   to   pay   compensation   to   the

petitioner for the loss occurred to it by not

granting registration for Haj 2018;

6

(d) Pass   such   other   and   further   orders   as

this   Hon'ble   Court   may   think   fit   in   the

interest of justice and equity.”

6.As   noted   above,   the   applications   of   petitioners

were   rejected   due   to   non­compliance   of   various

conditions as enumerated in Annexure A.  Application of

petitioner  in  Writ  Petition (C) No. 638 of  2018 has

been   rejected   for   non­compliance   of   Clause   (iv)   and

Clause (xi). Application of petitioner in Writ Petition

(C)   No.   646   of   2018   has   been   rejected   for   non­

compliance   of   Clause   (xii),   whereas   application   of

petitioner  in  Writ  Petition (C) No. 668 of  2018 has

been rejected for non­compliance of Clause (xi).  Thus,

it is sufficient to notice Clause (iv), Clause (xi) and

Clause   (xii)   of   Annexure   A   for   deciding   these   writ

petitions, which are to the following effect:­

Clause(iv) Minimum Annual Turnover of INR One Crore

or   more   from   Haj   and   Umrah   operations

during any of the two preceding financial

years along with Balance Sheet and Profit

&   Loss   Account­duly   audited   by   the

Statutory Auditors, Tax Audit Report and

Income Tax Return (ITR).  

Clause (xi) Contract   for   hiring   of   buildings   for

7

pilgrims   and   “Tasreeh”   together   with

English   translations   PTO   category   wise.

(Please   enclose   rental   receipts   and   a

copy of lease deed, duly signed with the

Saudi owners).

Clause (xii) Copy   of   Munazzim   Card   and   relevant   Haj

visa   pages   of   the   Passport   of   the

Proprietor/Owner.

7.Now, we proceed to notice the facts of each writ

petition.

Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018 – Ruby Tour Services

Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 

8.The   petitioner   was   a   qualified   Private   Tour

Operator   from   2002   to   2015   and   2017   and   was   so

registered with the Government of India.   After issue

of   Haj   Policy­2013,   the   respondent   had   released   the

list of qualified Private Tour Operators for the Haj­

2013, in which name of petitioner was included at Sl.

No.224   of   qualified   Private   Tour   Operators   under

Category I.  In the year 2014, 2015, petitioner's name

was   included   in   the   List   of   eligible   Private   Tour

Operators.   Petitioner conducted services for Haj­2015

without   any   complaint.     By   press   release   dated

8

29.04.2016,   applications   were   invited   from   eligible

Private Tour Operators for registration of Haj – 2016

in   response   to   which,   petitioner   applied.     The

respondent vide communication dated 26.07.2016 rejected

the   application   of   the   petitioner   for   Haj­2016.

Petitioner filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 623 of   2016

against the rejection of its application for Haj­2016,

in which notice was issued by this Court on 08.08.2016.

The  respondent  after  the   scrutiny  of   the  application

and  documents  submitted  by  the   petitioner,  found  the

petitioner eligible to conduct Haj Pilgrimage for 2017

and accordingly issued certificate of registration and

allotted quota of 105 pilgrims.  The Writ Petition (C)

No.   623   of   2016   filed   by   the   petitioner   has   been

dismissed as infructuous.     In pursuance of Circular

dated   09.12.2017   inviting   applications,   petitioner

submitted   an   application   along   with   supporting

documents.     Fourteen   queries   were   raised   by   the

respondent   through   e­mail   dated   25.03.2018   raising

different objections.  Petitioner vide its letter dated

05.04.2018 submitted reply to all the queries raised.

9

9.In   query   No.   11   regarding   turn   over   details,

following was communicated:

“PTO attached Turnover Certificate of 2.16 cr.

of ruby tour and travels and have mentioned

that the documents explaining the same have

been attached on page 50­52 of the Application

File but there are no such documents on record

which explain the turnover of 2.16 cr.”

10. Petitioner had replied the said query in its reply

as follows:­

“The   Turnover   Certificate   of   INR   2.16CR   is

attached herewith for your kind perusal.  The

omission error of Page No. 50­52 is highly

regrettable.” 

11.With   regard   to   non­compliance   of   Clause(xi)   of

Annexure­A,   the   Government   noticed   the   reply   dated

05.04.2018 but has refused to register citing technical

advice from empanelled Chartered Accountant Firms.  It

is useful to refer to Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the letter

dated 31.05.2018, which contains the consideration by

the Government of India:­

10

“2.As per Clause (iv) of Annexure A of PTO

Policy, the said PTO was required to submit

the turnover certificate.  On scrutiny of the

documents submitted by the PTO, it has been

found   that   PTO   is   not   fulfilling   the

clause(iv) of Annexure A of PTO Policy for Haj

2018.   The PTO was requested to clarify the

followings:­

“PTO   attached   Turnover   Certificate

of 2.16 cr. of Ruby Tour and Travels

and   have   mentioned   that   the

documents   explaining   the   same   have

been attached on page 50­52 of the

Application   File   but   there   are   no

such   documents   on   record   which

explain the turnover of 2.16 cr.”

3.As per Clause (xi) of Annexure A of PTO

Policy, the said PTO was required to submit

rental receipts and a copy of lease deed, duly

signed with the Saudi owners.  On scrutiny of

the documents submitted by the PTO,   it has

been   found   that   PTO   is   not   fulfilling   the

clause   (xi)   of   Annexure   A.     The   PTO   was

requested to clarify the followings:­

“In   the   invoice   copy   of   Makkah   2

invoice dated 17/08/2015 there is a

11

condition   that   PTO   should   send   the

payment   on   or   before   25/07/2015

which is prima facie not possible as

that   date   has   already   passed.

Moreover payment made on 19/08/2015

but receipt for the same issued on

24/07/2015.   Hence the authenticity

of   the   Receipt   cannot   be

established.” 

4.The said PTO in its reply clarified as

under:

“The   Turnover   Certificate   of   INR

2.16CR is attached herewith for your

kind perusal.  The omission error of

Page   No.   50­52   is   highly

regrettable.”

"In   the   Invoice   copy   of   Makkah   2

Invoice   dated   17/08/2015,   the

supplier   has   erroneously   typed   the

wrong   sending   date   as   25/07/2015

instead of 25/08/2015, and also the

receipt   issued   date   as   24/07/2015,

instead   of   24/08/2015.     We   regret

the oversight by supplier and hereby

attach   the   swift   copy   along   with

Invoice   and   Bank   Statement   details

to   authenticate   the   same.     The

12

Tashree   agreement   dated   17.08.2015

also   authenticates   the   transaction

done in August 2015”.

5.As per the technical advice received from

the empanelled Chartered Accountant Firms and

on scrutiny of the clarification/reply of the

PTO,   it   has   been   observed   that   the   PTO

Applicant's turnover is less than Rs.1 crore

from   Haj   and   Umrah   operations   as   required

under Clause (iv) of Annexure A of PTO Policy

2018.  It is further observed that the receipt

of accommodation is dated prior to the date of

Payment   (as   authenticated   from   the   Bank

Statement   and   Foreign   exchange   Purchase

Invoices).     Hence   the   Receipts   lack

authenticity.  The requirements of Clause (iv)

and (xi) of Annexure A of PTO Policy 2018 are

not complied.” 

12.The   petitioner   has   filed   additional   documents  to

support   its   reply   given   on   05.04.2018.   Counter

Affidavit has also been filed by the respondent.

Writ Petition (C) No. 646 of 2018 – M/s. Nawab Travels

Private Limited Vs. Union of India

13

13.The   petitioner   had   been   found   eligible   for   the

years 2002, 2006­I, 2006­II, 2007 to 2010 and during

each period, registration certificate was issued to the

petitioner   and   Haj   quotas   were   also   allotted.     In

response   to   the   circular   dated   09.12.2017   inviting

applications for Private Tour Operators for Haj­2018,

petitioner   also   submitted   an   application.     Certain

clarifications were sought through online PTO portal.

Petitioner   submitted   its   clarification   on   04.04.2018.

By   communication   dated   31.05.2018,   the   petitioner's

application was refused to register on the ground of

non­fulfillment of Clause (xii) of Annexure A.   It is

useful to extract Paras 2, 3 and 4 of the communication

dated 31.05.2018, which is to the following effect:­

“2.As per Clause (xii) of Annexure A of PTO

Policy, the said PTO was required to submit

the copy of Munazzim card and Haj visa pages

of the passport of the owner/proprietor.   On

scrutiny   of   the   documents   submitted   by   the

PTO,   it   has   been   found   that   PTO   is   not

fulfilling   the   Clause   (xii)   of   Annexure   A.

The PTO was sent the following observation:­

14

“Copies   of   Munazzim   Card   and   visa

copy are not legible.”

3.The said PTO in its reply clarified as

under:

“It   is   hereby   clarified   that   the

Munazzim Card and Haj Visa is issued

in the name of Tour Assistant.   We

have   deputed   Mr.   Abdur   Razzaque

Chand Mia as Tour Assistant for Haj

2010.   We have already submitted a

drafted letter providing details of

Tour   Assistant   along   with   the

Application for Registration of PTO

for Haj 2018 vide Page No. 199, we

are   again   submitting   self­attested

copy   of   the   same   for   your   kind

perusal.”

4.As per the technical advice received from

the empanelled Chartered Accountant Firms and

on scrutiny of the clarification/reply of the

PTO it has been observed that the copies of

Munazim Card and Haj Visa pages copy provided

in   the   Physical   file   and   uploaded   on   the

portal   were   not   completely   legible.     A

difference was found in the name and Passport

No. as per Munazim Card and Visa Copy.  Other

details were not legible.  Copies of Munazzim

15

Card and Visa Copy are not attached in the

clarification.     The   same   is   required   under

Clause (xii) of Annexure A of PTO Policy 2018.

Hence, the copy of Munazzim card and Haj Visa

pages of the passport of the owner/proprietor

as required under Clause (xii) of Annexure A

of PTO Policy for Haj 2018 is not complied.” 

14.Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent.

Petitioner   has   also   filed   additional   documents   to

support his reply.

Writ Petition (C) No. 668 of 2018 – M/s. Hiba Exports

India Vs. Union of India 

15.The petitioner – a sole proprietor is carrying on

the  business   of  recruitment  for  deployment  of  Indian

workers with foreign employers, who is license holder

for   last   20   years   from   Government   of   India.     The

petitioner   firm   also   provided   Haj   services   to   the

pilgrims for the year 2002, 2009, 2010 and 2011.   In

response to registration of Private Tour Operators­Haj

2013, petitioner also submitted its application.  After

response   to   the   explanations   called   for   from   the

petitioner   and   submission   of   clarifications   by

16

petitioner vide letter dated 30.07.2013, petitioner was

included  in the List  issued on  07.01.2014.    For the

year 2014 and 2015, petitioner's name was not included

as a qualified Private Tour Operator.   Petitioner had

also   filed   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   413   of   2015,   in

response   to   registration   for   Haj   2016,   petitioner

submitted application and his name was included in the

list  of  private  tour   operators   issued  on  29.04.2016.

Although,   petitioner   was   included   in   the   list   of

Private   Tour   Operators   for   the   draw   of   lots   as   per

Press   Release   dated   29.04.2016   but   unfortunately   was

not granted quota due to draw of lots.  Petitioner was

thus eligible for quota of Haj Pilgrimage for 2017 even

without draw of lots.   In response to application for

Haj­2018,   petitioner   submitted   its   application,

objections   were   raised   by   communication   dated

25.03.2018, which were duly replied.   The application

of   the   petitioner   for   registration   for   Haj­2018   has

been  rejected  by  communication  dated  31.05.2018.    In

Paras 2 and 3 of the communication, following has been

stated:­

17

“2.As per Clause (xi) of Annexure A of PTO

Policy, the said PTO was required to submit

rental receipts and a copy of lease deed, duly

signed   with   the   Saudi   owners.     As   per   the

technical advice received from the empanelled

Chartered Accountant Firms and on scrutiny of

the   clarification/reply   of   the   PTO   the

following has been observed:

“The   PTO   has   not   submitted   Rental

receipt of SAR 22500/­ for contract

No.   705522   entered   with   Ali   M.A.

Jabullah (Amjadus Salam) and Rental

Receipt of SAR 75000/­ for Contract

No.213351   entered   with   Zaid   A.A.

Abid for hiring of accommodation for

pilgrims,   instead   submitted   with

reply   of   the   query   Receipt   Voucher

No.0006   for   SAR   200000/­   issued   by

Muttawiffy   Hujjaj   South   Asia

Establishment   and   Receipt   Voucher

No.49812 which is in Arabic and no

translation   of   the   same   has   been

submitted.   Hence   PTO   has   not

complied   with   the   requirement   of

Clause   (xi)   of   Annexure   A   of   PTO

Policy”

18

4.In view of the deficiencies mentioned in

Para 2 above, M/s. Hiba Exports India, D 60/4

FIRST   FLOOR   NEAR   GREEN   PARK,   METRO   STATION

GATE NO.1 YUSUF SARAI, NEW DELHI­110016 has

not been found eligible for registration and

allocation of quota for Haj 2018.”

16.We   have   heard   Shri   Santosh   Krishnan,   learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner in first two writ

petitions.     We   have   also   heard   learned   counsel

appearing in Writ Petition (C) No.668 of 2018.   Shri

K.K. Venugopal learned Attorney General and Ms. Pinky

Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General have been

heard for the respondent.

17.Shri   Santosh   Krishnan,   learned     counsel   for   the

petitioner  assailing the order dated 31.05.2018 of the

respondent in Writ Petition No.638 of 2018 submits that

the   two   reasons   given   in   the   order   dated   31.05.2018

have no basis. The petitioner had fully complied with

Clause   (iv)   of   Annexure   A   since   it   has   filed   all

relevant   documents   showing   turnover   of   Rs.2.16   crore

during the financial year 2015­16. He refers pages 6 to

27 of additional documents filed in the writ petition

19

attacking   on   the   averments   made   in   the   counter­

affidavit that the PTO did not submit its own balance­

sheet but submitted the balance­sheet of Ruby Tours &

Travels.   It   is   submitted   that   till   Haj   2015,     the

petitioner   herein   was   conducting   the   service   as   a

Proprietorship   Firm   under   the   name   Ruby   Tours   &

Travels.   However,   from   Haj   2017   the   entity   Type   was

changed to Private Limited Company and this fact having

been   accepted   by   all   authorities   including   the

respondent   for   Haj   2017,   the   ground   was   no   longer

available to reject the registration by the respondent

for   Haj   2018.   Coming   to   the   second   reason   that

violation of Clause (xi), the petitioner submitted all

documents   including   the   Contract   for   hiring   of

buildings and rent receipts, proof of payment through

authorised   channel   and   invoices   from   the   owner,

however, due to a typographical error by the building

owner at Saudi Arabia, date of receipt is mentioned as

25.07.2015 instead of 25.08.2015 and date of payment is

mentioned as 24.07.2015 instead of 20.08.2015. A Bank

statement   and   soft   copy   would   show   that   payment   was

actually made on 25.08.2015.

20

18.Learned   counsel   further   submitted  that   there   has

been   no   application   of   mind   by   the   respondent   while

refusing registration. The respondent has mechanically

followed   the   advice   given   by   Chartered   Accountant

Firms.   The   rejection   was     premised   on   the   technical

advice   received   from   the   empanelled   Chartered

Accountant Firms which itself shows non­application of

mind by the respondent.

19.Shri   K.K.   Venugopal,   learned   Attorney   General,

refuting   the   above   submissions   contends   that   order

rejecting registration has been issued considering the

objections raised, clarifications/replies submitted and

documents   submitted   by   the   petitioner.   He   submitted

that   the   documents   for   turnover   submitted   by   the

petitioner were the documents   of Proprietorship Firm

that is Ruby Tours & Travels whereas registration was

applied for Haj by the  Private Limited Company and no

documents have been submitted that  Proprietorship Firm

has  been   converted   into  Private  Limited  Company.  The

petitioner   which   is  a  Private  Limited  Company  cannot

rely   on   turnover   of     Proprietorship   Firm.   It   is

21

submitted that decision was arrived after application

of mind and the rejection having been based on valid

reason this Court shall not substitute its own decision

with  that  of  department.   On  submission  pertaining  to

second ground, it is contended that PTO’s application

that   there   was   a   typographical   error,   cannot   be

submitted   since   typographical   error   was   not   only   in

one document but in the various documents submitted by

the   PTO   which   fact   itself   raises   question   of

credibility of the PTO.

20.We   have   gone   through   the   rival   submissions   and

perused the records of Writ Petition No.638 of 2018.

21.For turnover the petitioner has placed reliance on

certificate   of   Chartered   Accountants   dated   02.01.2018

as Annexure P­18. The certificate reads:

“To whomsoever it may concern

This is to certify that the Ruby Tours

&   Travels   (Prop.   Nazir   Ahmed   Shaikh)

having its office at 7/8, Ground Floor,

2421 East Street Galleria, East Street

Camp,   Pune­411001   had   doing   the

business of Haj Tours.

This is also to certify that Ruby Tours

22

&   Travels   is   having   Haj   turnover   of

Rs.2.16 Crore during the financial year

2015­16. 

This   is   on   the   basis   of   information,

explanations & records produced before

me.

For A S Gholkar & Co.

Chartered Accountants

Amit S. Gholkar

(Proprietor)

Place: Pune

Date: 02/01/2018

Certificate No.ASG/2017­18/068.”

22.The petitioner has applied quota as Private Limited

Company   which   fact   is   not   disputed.   Objection   was

raised   by   query   dated   25.03.2018   that   all   documents

were   submitted   for     Private   Limited   Company   but

previous   quota   including   2015   were   allotted   to

proprietor.   The   Type   of   entity   is   changed.   After

considering the reply ultimately order dated 31.05.2018

stated that PTO’s turnover is less than Rs.1 crore as

required under Clause (iv). In the counter­affidavit as

well as in the oral submissions, the aforesaid ground

was relied on behalf of the respondents for rejection.

23

The   petitioner   has   filed   rejoinder­affidavit   to   the

counter­affidavit in which petitioner submits that till

Haj   2015   petitioner   was   conducting   service   as   a

Proprietorship   Firm   under   the   name   Ruby   Tours   &

Travels,   however,   from   Haj   2017   the   entity   Type   was

changed   to   Private   Limited   Company.   The   PTO   who   has

applied   for   registration   is   admittedly   a   Private

Limited Company and the turnover which is relied was of

a   Proprietorship   Firm.   It   is   not   the   case   that   the

Company   having   incorporated   after   the   Proprietor

business was closed. It is not a case of conversion of

Proprietorship   Firm   into   Company.   No   documents   have

been submitted that Proprietorship Firm sold its entire

business to the Company. It is also relevant to point

out   that   when   the   petitioner   had   applied   for

registration for Haj 2016, the objection was raised by

letter   dated   07.06.2016   of   the   respondent   where

following was stated:

“2(vi).     In   the   application   form   the

PTO   has   mentioned   it   is   a

proprietorship   firm   but   as   per

documents   provided   it   is   a   private

limited company. Further, the names of

all directors are also not disclosed.”

24

23.Thus,   the   petitioner   was   well   aware   of   the

objections  raised by the respondent under Clause (iv)

regarding  turnover  relied  by   the  petitioner  being  of

different   entity.   The   position   ought   to   have   been

explained by the petitioner by submitting all relevant

documents   including   conversion   of   Proprietorship   Firm

into   Private   Limited   Company   with   transfer   of   its

assets   and   liabilities.   The   fact   that   turnover   of

different entity was relied, the decision rejecting the

registration cannot be said to be perverse or based on

no   material.   Learned  counsel   for  the   petitioner  laid

much emphasis that for the Haj 2017 when the petitioner

was granted registration, it was not open to respondent

to   raise   objections   again.   Learned   Attorney   General

submitted that there are large number of applications

every   year   and   there   being   time   constraint   in

verification of the application if in the event a PTO

is ineligible which escaped notice of the respondent in

a   particular   year   there   cannot   be   estoppel   on   the

Government   to   raise   issue   of   ineligibility   in   the

subsequent year. We find substance in the submission of

25

the learned Attorney General. The Government cannot be

estopped   to   raise   issue   of   ineligibility   in   case   it

escaped its notice in any earlier order. We, thus, do

not find any infirmity in the ground taken in the order

dated 31.05.2018 in refusing registration due to non­

compliance of Clause (iv). We having upheld the order

dated   31.05.2018,   it   is   not   necessary   for   us   to

consider   the   rival   submissions   with   regard   to   non­

compliance of Clause (xi). 

24.The   submission   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the

petitioner   that   report   of   Chartered   Accountant   Firms

empanelled   by   the   respondent   has   been   mechanically

considered also cannot be accepted. The objections were

raised after scrutiny of the application to which reply

was   submitted   by   the   petitioner.   In   the   event   the

Government   received   the   assistance   from   a   Chartered

Accountant   Firm   no   exception   can   be   taken   to   such

assistance provided it is proved that there is no non­

application of mind by the Government on the relevant

facts and documents. In the present case order dated

31.05.2018   refers   to   the   objections   raised,

26

clarifications/replies submitted by the petitioner. The

technical advice received from the empanelled Chartered

Accountant Firms has also been relied to support its

conclusion   in   which   no   infirmity   can   be   found.   We,

thus, are of the view that there are no grounds for

interfering   in   the   order   dated   31.05.2018   in   Writ

Petition No.638 of 2018 which writ petition deserves to

be   dismissed.   The   writ   petition   is   accordingly

dismissed. 

25.Now   coming   to   the   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   646   of

2018.   Mr.   Santosh   Krishnan,   learned   counsel   for   the

petitioner   with   emphasis   and   clarity   submits   that

reasons   given   in   the   Order   dated   31.05.2018   for

refusing registration is trivial and non­existent.  He

submits that copies of Munazzim card and Visa copy were

duly submitted and the error pointed out in the name of

Mr. Abdur Razzaque as Abdul Razzaque in Munazzim card

being insignificant and trivial, ought not to have been

relied by the respondent to reject the claim.   It is

further submitted that typographical error in passport

number as contained in the Munazzim Card was also to be

27

ignored   since   the   copy   of   the   passport   with   correct

number was already submitted and it was not the case of

the respondent that any other person apart from Abdur

Razzaque  was tour Assistant of the petitioner.

26.Ms.   Pinky   Anand,   learned   Additional   Solicitor

General   refuting   the   submissions   contended   that   the

name as per translation duly attested by the Director

of   PTO   showed   the   name   as   Abdul   and   there   was

difference   in   passport   number   in   the   Munazzim   Card,

which   showed   passport   No.   as   F­83847646   whereas   the

correct passport number is F­8384646.  It is submitted

that rejection was on valid ground.  

27.We have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 

28.The Munazzim Card and Haj Visa is issued in the

name   of   tour   assistant   by   the   Saudi   Authorities.

Details  of  tour  assistants  were  already  submitted  at

Page No. 199 of the application, which was re­submitted

alongwith   clarification   of   the   petitioner.     In   the

28

translated   copy   as   is   the   case   of   the   respondent,

attested by the Director of the PTO, the name of Abdur

Razzaque   was   shown   as   Abdul   Razzaque.     The   Munazzim

Card is issued by the Saudi Authorities and the mention

of word “l” in place of “r” at the end of the name

Abdur is on account of difference in pronounciation of

the name by the Saudi Authorities, which does not go to

the root of the matter since it is not the case of the

respondent that the tour assistant was any other person

except the one who was authorised by the petitioner.

Further,   the   photocopy   of   the   passport   of   Abdur

Razzaque   Chand   Mia   was   submitted   by   the   petitioner

alongwith photograph and other details.  Correct number

of   passport   i.e.   F­8384646   is   also   submitted   to   the

respondent.  Photocopy of the visa issued by the Saudi

Authorities   is   also   brought   on   the   record   alongwith

additional   documents   which   mentions   correct   passport

number i.e. F­8384646.  In the Munazzim Card issued by

authorities,   it   is   also   brought   on   record   before   us

that passport number mentioned is F­83847646. The digit

“7”   has   been   mentioned   additionally   in   the   passport

number, which is an obvious mistake.   We are of the

29

view that the reliance on aforesaid two grounds which

are too trivial and insignificant, cannot be said to be

any valid ground for rejection of the claim.  Moreover

when   the   same   tour   assistant   with   the   same   passport

number   has   conducted   the   Haj   services   for   the   year

2010,   the   respondent's   authorities   while   considering

the case of the PTO for registration have to advert to

the substance of the matter and substance of the reply

submitted by the PTO need to be gone into.  In event of

PTO  fulfills   other   conditions,  rejection  of  claim  on

trivial   and   non­substantial   grounds   cannot   be

countenance.     We   are   of   the   view   that   rejection   of

registration   of   the   PTO   for   Haj­2018   in   the   present

case cannot be supported and deserves to be set aside.

29.Now, we come to the question of relief, which is to

be   granted   to   the   petitioner,   in   view   of   our   above

decision that rejection of claim of petitioner for Haj­

2018 was unfounded.  Learned counsel for the petitioner

has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in

Jeddah   Travels   and   Jeddah   Hajj   Group   Vs.   Union   of

30

India, (2014) 14 SCC 378,   where this Court laid down

following in Paragrpah 7:­

“7. Having considered the contentions advanced

on behalf of the rival parties, we are of the

view that the petitioners who had approached

the Court well in time cannot be denied the

benefit   of   an   adjudication   as   urged   by   the

learned ASG. The time­frame still available,

in our considered view, is adequate to enforce

the   rights   of   the   petitioners   if   they   are

found so entitled. ”

30. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner

has filed this petition on 04.06.2018, which was the

date for allocation of Haj quota to the eligible PTOs,

petitioner   is   entitled   for   relief.     Shri   Santosh

Krishnan submitted that even if the quota is allotted

to all the PTOs, the number of passengers allotted to

each   PTO   may   be   reduced   by   one,   which   may   be   re­

allotted   to   petitioner   and   another   eligible   person.

This Court in  United Air Travels Services Through its

Proprietor A.D.M. Anwar Khan vs. Union of India through

Secretary   (Ministry   of   External   Affairs),   (2018)   7

31

SCALE 1: AIR 2018 SC 2264  decided on 07.05.2018 came to

consider the question of relief to be granted to PTO,

whose   application   for   grant   of   registration   for   Haj

Pilgrimage – 2016 was rejected.   In the present writ

petition, one of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner

is for grant of compensation.   In Prayer C, following

has been prayed:­

“(c)Issue a Writ, order or direction in the

nature   of   Mandamus   commanding   and   directing

the   respondent   to   pay   compensation   to   the

petitioner for the loss occurred to it by not

granting registration for Haj 2018;”

31.This Court in  United Air Travel Services (supra)

considered the question of grant of relief and has laid

down following in Paragraphs 13 to 18:­

“13. The question, however, rises what relief

can   be   granted   in   such   a   situation.   The

passage   of   time   has   made   certain   reliefs

infructuous.   The   time   period   for   conducting

Hajj tours for 2016 as well as 2017 is over.

Thus, even the alternative relief prayed for

2017 has become infructuous. In three of the

writ   petitions,   i.e.,   WP   (C)   Nos.631/2016;

634/2016   &   636/2016,   there   is   a   specific

32

alternative   plea   for   compensation   to   the

petitioners for the loss accrued due to non­

grant of registration for the Hajj of 2016.

While there is no such specific plea in the

other   writ   petitions,   given   the   identical

situation, we are of the view that the same

principle   ought   to   be   applied   in   all   these

cases.   The   petitioners   cannot   be   left

remediless.   The   mindless   action   of   the

respondents   in   rejecting   the   eligibility   of

the petitioners for the year 2016 on the very

grounds   on   which   they   were   exempted

necessitates   that   the   petitioners   should   be

entitled to damages in public law so that they

are compensated, at least, to some extent for

not having been able to carry on with their

business on account of illegal action of the

respondents.

14. The principles of damages in public law

have to, however, satisfy certain tests. In

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2

SCC   746,   it   was   observed   that   public   law

proceedings   serve   a   different   purpose   than

private law proceedings. In that context, it

was observed as under:

“The   purpose   of   public   law   is   not

only   to   civilize   public   power   but

also to assure the citizen that they

33

live under a legal system which aims

to   protect   their   interests   and

preserve   their   rights.   Therefore,

when the court molds the relief by

granting   ‘compensation’   in

proceedings under Articles 32 or 226

of   the   Constitution   seeking

enforcement   or   protection   of

fundamental rights, it does so under

the public law by way of penalising

the   wrongdoer   and   fixing   the

liability   for   the   public   wrong   on

the   State   which   has   failed   in   its

public   duty   to   protect   the

fundamental   rights   of   the   citizen.

The payment of compensation in such

cases is not to be understood, as it

is   generally   understood   in   a   civil

action for damages under the private

law   but   in   the   broader   sense   of

providing   relief   by   an   order   of

making   ‘monetary   amends’   under   the

public law for the wrong done due to

breach   of   public   duty,   of   not

protecting the fundamental rights of

the citizen. The compensation is in

the   nature   of   ‘exemplary   damages’

awarded   against   the   wrong   doer   for

the   breach   of   its   public   law   duty

34

and   is   independent   of   the   rights

available to the aggrieved party to

claim compensation under the private

law   in   an   action   based   on   tort,

through a suit instituted in a court

of   competent   jurisdiction   or/and

prosecute   the   offender   under   the

penal law.” 

It was also emphasized that it is a sound

policy to punish the wrongdoer and it is in

that spirit that the courts have molded the

relief by granting compensation in exercise of

writ jurisdiction. The objective is to ensure

that   public   bodies   or   officials   do   not   act

unlawfully.   Since   the   issue   is   one   of

enforcement of public duties, the remedy would

be available under public law notwithstanding

that damages are claimed in those proceedings.

15.   The   aforesaid   aspect   was,   once   again,

emphasized   in  Common   Cause,   a   Registered

Society v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667 .

We may also usefully refer to  N. Nagendra Rao

& Co. v. State of A.P., (1994) 6 SCC 205  qua

the   proposition   that   the   determination   of

vicarious liability of the State being linked

with the negligence of its officer is nothing

35

new if they can be sued personally for which

there is no dearth of authority.

16.   In   the   facts   of   the   present   case,   the

arbitrariness and illegality of the action of

the authority is writ large. The petitioners

have been deprived of their right to secure

the quota on a patently wrongful order passed

for reasons, which did not apply to them and

for   conditions,   which   had   been   specifically

exempted.   What   could   be   a   greater

arbitrariness and illegality? Where there is

such   patent   arbitrariness   and   illegality,

there   is   consequent   violation   of   the

principles enshrined under Article 14 of the

Constitution   of   India.   The   facts   of   the

present   case   are,   thus,   undoubtedly   giving

rise to the satisfaction of parameters as a

fit case for grant of compensation.

17.   On   a   conspectus   of   the   aforesaid   facts

including the number of pilgrims for whom the

petitioners   would   have   been   entitled   to

arrange the Hajj pilgrimage, an amount of Rs.5

lakh   per   petitioner   would   be   adequate

compensation for the loss suffered by them and

sub­serve   the   ends   of   justice.   We   are

conscious   of   the   fact   that   there   is   no

quantification based on actual loss, but then

36

the award by us is in the nature of damages in

public law.

18. The amount for each of the petitioners be

remitted by the respondents within two months

from the date of this order failing which the

amount would carry interest @ 15 per cent per

annum apart from any other remedy available to

the   petitioners.   It   will   be   open   to   the

respondents to recover the amount of damages

and   costs   from   the   delinquent   officers

responsible   for   passing   such   unsustainable

orders.”

32.  We   are   of   the   view   that   petitioner   is   also

entitled for same compensation of Rs.5 lakh, which is

adequate   compensation   for   the   loss   suffered   by   the

petitioner and shall subserve the justice.  We further

direct   that   the   aforesaid   amount   be   paid   within   two

months from this date, failing which the amount would

carry simple interest @ 15 per cent per annum.   The

Writ Petition (C) No. 646 of 20185 is allowed to the

above extent. 

37

33.Now we come to the last writ petition being Writ

Petition (C) No. 668 of 2018.  Learned counsel for the

petitioner   in   support   of   the   above   petition   submits

that   although   the   petitioner   has   submitted   necessary

details including rental receipts, which is reflected

in their reply dated 31.03.2018 but the claim has been

rejected with the observation that petitioner has not

submitted   that   rental   receipts   and   the   receipts   and

vouchers   submitted   by   the   petitioner   were   issued   by

Muttawiffy Hujjaj South Asia Establishment, which was

not rental receipt with regard to contract entered with

Ali   M.A.   Jabullah   and   Zaid   A.A.   Abid   for   hiring   of

accommodation for pilgrims.   Petitioner submitted that

receipts   having   been   again   submitted   alongwith   the

reply dated 31.03.2018, the rejection was uncalled for.

Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General

refuting the submission contends that Muttawiffy Hujjaj

South   Asia   Establishment   was   not   the   party   who   had

provided   accommodation   to   PTOs.     Since   the

accommodation   contract   at   Madina   was   entered   with

different persons and further no proper reply has been

38

given   to   the   petitioner   except   again   relying   on   the

said receipts.  

34.We   have   considered   the   above   submissions   of   the

parties   and   have   perused   the   records.     Although   the

rejection   of   the   claim   of   the   petitioner   clearly

mentions   about   the   above   mismatch   and   stated   that

receipt voucher has been issued by entity with whom the

contract for accommodation was not entered into, but no

proper explanation in the writ petition has been given.

The writ petition only reiterates what was stated in

the   reply   dated   31.03.2018   without   explaining   the

objection raised by the respondent.   We are satisfied

that   there   was   valid   reason   for   the   respondent   to

refuse   registration   to   the   petitioner   when   the

objection   was   raised,   which   was   not   satisfactorily

replied by the petitioner.   We are of the view that

petitioner in this writ petition is not entitled for

any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 

35.In result, Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018 ­ Ruby

Tour  Services  Pvt.  Ltd. Vs. Union  of  India  and  Writ

39

Petition (C) No. 668 of 2018 ­ M/s. Hiba Exports India

Vs. Union of India are dismissed. Writ Petition (C) No.

646 of 2018 ­ M/s. Nawab Travels Private Limited Vs.

Union   of   India   is   allowed   with   a   direction   to   the

respondent to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakh within a

period   of   two   months   from   today,   failing   which   the

petitioner shall be entitled to claim simple interest @

15 per cent per annum.   Parties shall bear their own

costs.

.............................J.

( A.K. SIKRI )

...............................J.

( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

NEW DELHI,

JULY 30, 2018.