Union Of India vs Rafique Shaikh Bhikan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(SC) 378

Supreme Court of India
AFTAB ALAM, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.
Union Of India & Others
Versus
Rafique Shaikh Bhikan & Others
Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No.28609 of 2011 With T.C.(C) Nos. 90 of 2012, 91 of 2012, 92 of 2012, 93 of 2012 & 94 of 2012 & W.P(C) No. 330 of 2012 & 336 of 2012
Decided on : 16-04-2013

Headnote:
Constitution Of India,1950 - advocate, who was appointment - submit the proof of payment - petition was filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court by which the Government was directed to release 800 seats from the Government quota in favour of the writ petitioners (a group of private tour operators) under the Government’s PTO Policy for hajj 2011. Though the special leave petition was on a very limited issue, this Court by order dated February 17, 2012 decided to treat the case as a public interest litigation and to examine some of the major issues concerning the Hajj Policy of the Government of India.
2. In the past two years this Court has passed orders on a number of issues concerning the Government Hajj Policy. By order dated May 8, 2012, the Court dealt with the issues of Hajj Subsidy and the Goodwill Hajj Delegation and passed necessary directions in that regard. The directions on those issues are reiterated and confirmed and directed to be followed strictly –Held, transportation and payment of compulsory charges to the Authorities in Saudi Arabia. PTO should honour all terms & conditions of the contract signed with the pilgrims and ensure that none of them is left stranded.
VI PTO should provide good quality Identity card, indicating name of the pilgrim and of the PTO, Passport number and place of stay in Makkah/Madinah, to each pilgrim to be worn around the neck whenever they leave the building.
VII PTO should ensure that baggage of all their pilgrims are cleared before they leave the Hajj Terminals in India/Saudi Arabia.
VIII If a pilgrim sent by a PTO is found begging in Saudi Arabia or declared Fuqra by Saudi Authorities, the PTO will be blacklisted permanently and its security deposit forfeited.
Family will include wife and dependent children. In case more than one member of a family satisfy the eligibility conditions and if one of them is a lady, the lady would be given preference for registration to the exclusion of others and if there is no lady, preference would be given to the member who is the oldest in the business for registration - Haj-2013. No applicant can apply in more than one PTO in his/her capacity as Director/Partner/ Proprietor.
XI PTO must submit only one application. If it is found that a PTO has submitted more than one application in different names, all such applications would be rejected and all such PTOs would be blacklisted and their security deposit would be forfeited conditions laid down in Annexures A & B will also apply on PTOs that qualify under Category-II by virtue of facilitating a minimum of 50 Umrah pilgrims in a year for any five years, but with the exception of the terms and conditions contained under clauses (vii), (x), (xi), xii of Annexure-A. In addition, these PTOs are also required to submit the proof of payment made through banking or any other authorized Channels towards purchase of tickets and hiring of accommodation in Makkah and Madina in respect of Umrah pilgrims facilitated – Order accordingly

Judgment :-

Aftab Alam,J.

1. This special leave petition was filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court by which the Government was directed to release 800 seats from the Government quota in favour of the writ petitioners (a group of private tour operators) under the Government’s PTO Policy for hajj 2011. Though the special leave petition was on a very limited issue, this Court by order dated February 17, 2012 decided to treat the case as a public interest litigation and to examine some of the major issues concerning the Hajj Policy of the Government of India.

2. In the past two years this Court has passed orders on a number of issues concerning the Government Hajj Policy. By order dated May 8, 2012, the Court dealt with the issues of Hajj Subsidy and the Goodwill Hajj Delegation and passed necessary directions in that regard. The directions on those issues are reiterated and confirmed and directed to be followed strictly.

3. By the same order, the Court also approved the Government’s PTO Policy for Hajj 2012.

4. By order dated July 23, 2012, the Court dealt with the quota of pilgrims that the Central Government kept reserved for allotment at its discretion and made directions in that regard. Those directions too are reiterated, confirmed and directed to be followed strictly.

5. By order dated July 27, 2012, the Court pointed out to the Attorney General that the PTO Policy for hajj 2012 did not allow the entry of anyone without past experience and asked him to ensure that future PTO policies should have sufficient room for the entry of fresh PTOs every year.

6. We now propose to deal with some other important issues in the Hajj Policy of the Government of India.

7. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, senior advocate, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae by order dated July 23, 2012, has painstakingly collected detailed information from the Haj Committee of India and the Haj Committees of different States. After scrutinizing the collected information with discernment he presented for consideration the following issues that need to be addressed by the Court:

i) Policy for Haj Committee of India Pilgrims.

ii) Time bound conduct of hajj process.

iii) Accommodation in Saudi Arabia.

iv) Air Fare

v) Grievance redressal

vi) Policy for Private Tour Operators.

We propose to take up all the issues in seriatim.

i). Policy for Haj Committee of India Pilgrims.

8. This relates to the policy in regard to pilgrims going for hajj through the Haj Committee of India (in distinction to those going through private tour operators). We accept the suggestion of the Amicus and hold that the practice of framing Hajj Policy on an annual basis is quite ad-hoc and unsatisfactory and must be replaced by a policy framework made for a period of five years. We, accordingly, direct that the Hajj Policy that is to be framed this year would be for a period of five years and would be called the Hajj Policy 2013 – 2017. The proposed Hajj Policy will be posted on the website of the MEA inviting objections, comments and suggestions within one month from the date it is made available on the website. The policy would be given the final shape after taking into account any objections, comments or suggestions that may be worthy of acceptance within a further period of one month. The final policy so framed shall remain valid and operative for a period of five years upto hajj 2017 and may be amended only in case of any change in the arrangements with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as per the agreement entered into between the two countries every year. The next five year policy will be similarly framed, keeping in view any problems that might have been encountered in following the previous policy and taking into account any improvements, innovations and technological advances in order to add content and quality to the succeeding policy and to make it perform better than the previous policy.

9. We further direct that the Hajj Policy should pay attention to special ne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document