ORDER :

1. Though the arguments have been extensive, the order that we propose to pass would be a short one and that has been possible due to the enormous amount of clarity that the learned Counsels have been able to throw on the issues that confronts us in this group of writ petitions. The Petitioners are Private Tour Operators (PTOs), who sends pilgrims for Hajj. They are essentially aggrieved by their disqualification for the Hajj Pilgrim 2013 which acts an embargo on consideration of their cases for Hajj Pilgrim 2014. Learned Counsels for the Petitioners have made it clear that in the present cases whether such disqualification was made on an erroneous interpretation of Clause (iv) and Clause (vii) of Annexure A (Terms and Conditions for Registration of Private Tour Operators (PTOs) for Hajj 2013) of the order dated 16th April, 2013 passed by this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan and Ors. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 699, is the only issue that arise for our consideration.

2. Clauses (iv) and (vii) of Annexure A to the aforesaid order may be conveniently reproduced herein below:

"(iv) Minimum annual turnover of INR one crore during the financial year 2010-2011 or 2011-2012 along with balance sheet and profit and loss account-duly audited by the statutory auditors, tax audit report and income tax return (ITR) for financial years 2012-2011 and 2011-2012

(vii) Proof of payment made through banking or other authorised channels towards purchase of tickets and hiring of accommodation in Makkah/Madinah. Payments towards purchase of tickets, hiring of accommodation for pilgrims in Makkah/Madinah, by any other means, would not be accepted."

3. It will also be necessary at this stage to take note of the Ministry of External Affairs (Gulf & Hajj Division)'s clarification on Clause (vii) of Annexure-A to PTO Hajj Policy-2013 extracted above, which is stated to be dated 8th May, 2013, and is to the following effect:

"As regards Clause (vii) of Annexure-A to PTO Hajj Policy-2013, it is clarified that the PTOs will have to submit the documents required under Clause (vii) of Annexure A to PTO Hajj Policy-2013 for a period of at least three years."

4. Learned Counsels for the Petitioners urge and contend that the requirement of submission of documents under the aforesaid Clause (vii) for a period of three years not only has the effect of re-writing the order of the Court inasmuch as the aforesaid Clause (vii) is a part of this Court's order dated 16th April, 2013 but it also runs counter to Clause (iv) which has in mind the years 2010-2011 and/or 2011-2012. In other words, the learned Counsels for the Petitioners argue that Clause (iv) and Clause (vii) of Annexure A have to be necessarily read together. it is on account of an erroneous attempt to understand the aforesaid clauses independent of each other that the disqualification of the Petitioners have been made by the Respondents, leading to the Writ Petitions in question.

5. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General has vehemently contended that the requirement under the order of the Court dated 16th April, 2013 is really for a seven year period, which is evident from a reading of Appendix i, which is to be found in Paragraph 36 of the aforesaid order of this Court. Learned Additional Solicitor General has tried to draw our attention to the detailed facts in which payments for accommodation had been allegedly made by some of the Petitioners so as to justify their disqualification under the Hajj 2013 policy. Shri Kaul has further argued that necessary and consequential agreements with the Government of Saudi Arabia has to be executed on or before 16th August, 2014 so as to enable selected tour operators to send pilgrims against their allotted quota. It has been emphasized that within the time available it may not be possible and feasible to complete the exercise which must, therefore, be relegated to the Calendar Year 2015 only. In this regard, it is poin