Haj: Haj pilgrimage – Grant of registration for – Disqualification – Private Tour Operators-PTOs conducting travel business for Hajj and Umrah – Application by the petitioners for registration and allocation of quota for the Hajj 2016 – Rejection of, on the ground of non-compliance with certain clauses of the policy for the PTOs – Thereafter, policy for Private Tour Operators for hajj 2013-2017’ – Petitioners were all eligible to be qualified as PTOs for the year 2015 for Hajj pilgrimage – Since qualified PTOs exceeded 90, draw of lots held but petitioners did not get quota – Thereafter, since petitioners were not successful in the draw of lots, they were entitled, under clause 4(b) of the policy, to be allocated 150 seats in the ensuing year without Qurrah if they remain qualified as PTOs – Subsequently, in view of certain changes in the policy, 50 seats to be allocated for 2016 – On 29.4.2016, publication of norms for registration of PTOs for Hajj 2016 by the Ministry of External Affairs – Persons like the petitioners who had qualified for the year 2015 but were not successful in the draw of lots would have the benefit of exemption – However, rejection letters intimating non-allocation of quota to private tour operators for non-compliance of the clauses – Held: Respondent’s plea that the reasons were wrongly communicated in the rejection letter, is unsustainable – Thus, the letters of rejection are quashed – With passage of time certain reliefs have become infructuous – Time period for conducting Hajj tours for 2016 as well as 2017 is over – In three writ petitions, petitioners sought compensation as alternative plea for the loss accrued – Same principle to be applied in all the cases – In view of the mindless action of the respondents in rejecting the eligibility of the petitioners for 2016 on the grounds on which they were exempted, petitioners entitled to damages in public law – Thus, the petitioners awarded compensation of Rs.5 lakh per petitioner.
Allowing the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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 writ petitions, there is a specific 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, 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. [Para 13] [706-G-H; 707-A-C]
1.2 In the facts of the instant 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 instant case are, thus, giving rise to the satisfaction of parameters as a fit case for grant of compensation. [Para 16] [708-D-E]
1.3 On a conspectus of the 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 sub-serve the ends of justice. There is no quantification based on actual loss, but then the award is in the nature of damages in public law. [Para 17] [708-F]
1.4 The amount for each of the petitioners be remitted by the respondents within the stipulated period failing which the amount would carry interest @ 15 per cent per annum apart from any other remedy available to the petitioners. [Para 18] [708-G] Union of India v. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan (2013) 4 SCC
699 : [2013] 5 SCR 428 ; Al Ismail Haj Tour v. Union of India (2016) 15 SCC 246 ; Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405 : [1978] 2 SCR 272 ; 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.