Haj Pilgrimage – Allocation of visas for Haj pilgrimage to Private Tour Operators (PTOs) – On facts, applications for registration by PTOs for Haj Pilgrimage-2018 – However, refusal of registration by the Government for Haj Pilgrimage -2018 on the ground of non-compliance of the various conditions in the Haj Policy – Rejection of first application for non-submission of minimum annual turnover certificate of Rs. 1 crore – Document for turnover of different entity submitted – PTO who applied for registration is a private limited company and document for turnover relied on was of proprietorship firm – Rejection of second application for nonsubmission of legible copies of Munazzim card and Haj visa pages of the passport of owner/proprietor – Rejection of third application for non-submission of rental receipts and copy of lease deed duly signed with the Saudi owners, rental receipt issued by party with whom no contract for accommodation of PTOs was entered into – Writ petition by PTOs seeking issuance of mandamus to the Government to register petitioner as PTO for Haj Pilgrimage -2018 and allot appropriate quota – Held: As regards the first application, the petitioner being aware, ought to have submitted all relevant documents including conversion of proprietorship firm into private limited company with transfer of its assets and liabilities – Since the turnover of different entity was relied, the decision rejecting the registration not perverse – Further, the Government cannot be estopped to raise issue of ineligibility in case it escaped its notice in any earlier order – Thus, there is no infirmity in the ground taken while refusing registration – As regards the second application, grounds are too trivial and insignificant, and cannot be said to be any valid ground for rejection of the claim – Rejection of registration of PTO for Haj Pilgrimage-2018 set aside and petitioner entitled to compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs – As regards the third application, although the rejection of the claim of the petitioner clearly mentions about the 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, thus, petitioner not entitled to any relief.
Disposing of the Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In Writ Petition No.638 of 2018, 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. 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. The submission 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, is accepted. The Government cannot be estopped to raise issue of ineligibility in case it escaped its notice in any earlier order. There is no infirmity in the ground taken in the order dated 31.05.2018 in refusing registration due to noncompliance of Clause (iv). [Para 23] [1183-F-H; 1184-A-B]
1.2 The submission that report of Chartered Accountant Firms empanelled by the respondent has been mechanically considered 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 nonapplication 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, 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. Thus, there are no grounds for interfering in the order in W.P. No.638 of 2018. [Para 24][1184-C-E]
2.1 As regards, Writ Petition No.646 of 2018, 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 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. F-8384646. In the Munazzim Card issued by authorities, it is also brought on record that passport number mentioned is F-83847646. The digit “7” has been mentioned additionally in the passport number, which is an obvious mistake. The reliance on said 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 non-substantial grounds cannot be countenanced. The rejection of registration of the PTO for Haj-2018 in the instant case cannot be supported and deserves to be set aside. [Para 28] [1185-C-H; 1186-A]
2.2 The petitioner is entitled for same compensation of Rs.5 lakh, which is adequate compensation for the loss suffered by the petitioner and shall subserve the justice. It is further directed that the said amount be paid within two months from this date, failing which the amount would carry simple interest @ 15 per cent per annum. [Para 32] [1189-C]
3. As regards Writ Petition No.668 of 2018, although the rejection of the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition, clearly mentions about the 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. 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. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief. [Para 34][1189-G-H; 1190-A, B] Union of India v. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan (2013) 4 SCC
699 : [2013] 5 SCR 428 ; Jeddah Travels and Jeddah Hajj Group v.. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 378 ; United Air Travels Services Through its Proprietor A.D.M. Anwar Khan v. Union of India through
Secretary (Ministry of External Affairs) (2018) 7 SCALE 1: AIR 2018 SC 2264 ; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 : [1993] 2 SCR 581 ; Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667 : [1999] 3 SCR 1279 ; N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P. (1994) 6 SCC 205 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 144 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.