2011 (10) TMI 769 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules on 2011 Haj policy legality and office area requirement for Private Tour Operators (PTOs)

Rafique Shaikh Bhikan and Ors. Versus The Government of India and Ors.

The Court upheld the legality of the 2011 Haj policy, including the requirement for Private Tour Operators (PTOs) to have a minimum office area of 250 sq. ... - Issues Involved:1. Challenge to the 2011 Haj policy by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) regarding registration of Private Tour Operators (PTOs).2. Specific condition in the policy requiring PTOs to have a minimum office area of 250 sq. feet.3. Allegations of arbitrary rejection of applications by the MEA.4. Potential jeopardy to the Haj pilgrimage due to changes in the list of PTOs.5. Allocation of remaining quotas.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to the 2011 Haj policy:The Petitioners challenged the 2011 Haj policy of the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), dated 24.6.2011, which involved the registration of Private Tour Operators (PTOs) and the allotment of pilgrim quotas. The Petitioners were aggrieved by the condition requiring PTOs to have a minimum office area of 250 sq. feet. They argued that the policy was arbitrary and lacked justification.2. Specific condition in the policy requiring PTOs to have a minimum office area of 250 sq. feet:The Petitioners contended that the condition of having a minimum office area of 250 sq. feet was introduced without a valid reason and was not included in the initial press release. The MEA later clarified that the requirement was for a carpet area of 250 sq. feet, which was not initially communicated to the applicants. The Petitioners argued that this condition was unreasonable and did not ensure the smooth travel of Haj pilgrims.3. Allegations of arbitrary rejection of applications by the MEA:The Petitioners claimed that their applications were rejected arbitrarily without any communication or justification from the MEA. They argued that the decision-making process was flawed and lacked transparency. The MEA, however, contended that the applications were scrutinized by a professional agency and a committee, and the rejections were based on the failure to meet the eligibility criteria, including the office area requirement.4. Potential jeopardy to the Haj pilgrimage due to changes in the list of PTOs:The MEA expressed concerns that altering the final list of PTOs at a late stage could jeopardize the entire Haj pilgrimage for the allocated quota of 45,491 pilgrims. The list had already been submitted to the Saudi authorities, and any changes could lead to complications and potential rejection by the Saudi Government. The Court acknowledged these concerns and decided not to interfere with the final list to avoid jeopardizing the pilgrimage.5. Allocation of remaining quotas:The MEA informed the Court that 800 quotas were still available for allocation. The Court directed the MEA to consider the applications of the Petitioners and other similarly situated PTOs for these remaining quotas. The Court allowed the consideration of applications without insisting on the 250 sq. feet office area requirement, provided all other terms and conditions of the 2011 Haj policy were met. The decision was to be taken within two days to ensure that the quotas did not go to waste or lapse.Conclusion:The Court upheld the legality of the 2011 Haj policy, including the condition requiring PTOs to have a minimum office area of 250 sq. feet. However, it directed the MEA to allocate the remaining 800 quotas by considering the applications of the Petitioners and other similarly situated PTOs without insisting on the office area requirement. The final list of 568 PTOs submitted to the Saudi authorities was not disturbed to avoid jeopardizing the pilgrimage.