1. Writ petitions challenging the rejection of registration as private tour operators for religious pilgrimage based on non-compliance with policy conditions. (Para 1 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 748
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. – PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA – RESPONDENT
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.638, 646, 668 OF 2018
Decided on : 30-07-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Claim should not have been rejected on trivial grounds.
Claim should not have been rejected on trivial grounds.
Subject
Constitutional Law - ARTICLE 32
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Administrative law – PTO Policy for Haj 2018 – Circular dated 09.12.2017 – Requirement of turnover – Petitioner registered earlier as partnership firm – Applying as Private Ltd Company but relying on turnover of earlier Firm – The two being different entities application authorities rejecting application for inadequate turnover of the applicant Company – In absence of any explanation by the petitioner about the position by submitting all relevant documents including conversion of Proprietorship Firm into Private Limited Company with transfer of its assets and liabilities, held, impugned order cannot be faulted. (Para 23)
(b) Administration of justice – Judicial Review – Impugned order issued after considering objection raised by authorities, reply submitted by petitioner and report of empanelled Chartered Accountant – No non application of mind – No exception can be taken to Government taking assistance from a Chartered Accountant firm. (Para 24)
(c) Administrative law – PTO Policy for Haj 2018 – Circular dated 09.12.2017 – Registration of PTO – Claim rejected on ground of difference in spelling and passport number in Munazzim Card and passport – Held to be typographical error and trivial – Rejection improper. (Para 28)
(d) Administration of justice – Judicial Review – PTO application submitted in time – Rejected on trivial grounds – Haj season over – Petitioner held entitled to compensation. (Para 32)
(2018) 7 SCALE 1: AIR 2018 SC 2264 – Relied upon
(e) Administrative law – PTO Policy for Haj 2018 – Circular dated 09.12.2017 – Registration of PTO – Contract of accommodation with one entity but receipts from another entity produced in support of claim – No explanation offered by petitioner – Rejection of claim held proper. (Para 34)
Facts of the case:
The Government of India (Ministry of Minority Affairs) vide its circular dated 09.12.2017 issued policy for Private Tour Operators for Haj 2018. The applications were invited on or before 05.01.2018. Annexure A to the policy was “Terms and Conditions for Registration of Private Tour Operators (PTOs) for Haj 2018”. Annexure B contained “Other Important Instructions/Guidelines for Haj 2018. Annexue contained “Application for Registration as Private Tour Operator (PTO)” Haj 2018. All the petitioners in pursuance of the said circular has submitted their applications for registration for Haj 2018. After certain queries, separate communication dated 31.05.2018 has been issued to petitioners refusing registration of them as Private Tour Operators for Haj 2018.
Finding of the Court:
Claim should not have been rejected on trivial grounds.
Result: Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018 and Writ Petition (C) No. 668 of 2018 dismissed. Writ Petition (C) No. 646 of 2018 allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claim rejection based on trivial errors or valid documents; respondents argue non-compliance with turnover, documentation, and authenticity requirements. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 25 , 26 , 33 )
3. Rejection is valid for entity-type mismatches and unsubstantiated documentation, but invalid for trivial typographical errors that do not affect the substance of eligibility. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 34 )
4. Government is not estopped from raising ineligibility in subsequent years if it escaped notice previously; trivial errors cannot justify rejection of registration. (Para 23 , 28 )
5. Two petitions dismissed; one allowed with a direction to pay public law compensation for arbitrary rejection. (Para 32 , 35 )
6. Can the government be estopped from rejecting an application if the applicant was found eligible in previous years despite the same ineligibility?
No. If an ineligibility escaped the notice of the government in a particular year, there cannot be estoppel preventing the government from raising that issue of ineligibility in subsequent years. (Para 23 )
7. Can a registration application be rejected based on trivial typographical errors in supporting documents?
No. Rejection on trivial and insignificant grounds cannot be sustained if the applicant fulfills the substance of the requirements and the errors do not affect the core eligibility. (Para 28 )
8. When is compensation awarded as damages in public law proceedings under Articles 32 or 226?
Compensation is awarded as exemplary damages to penalize the state for a breach of public duty and arbitrary or illegal actions that violate fundamental rights, such as Article 14, ensuring public bodies do not act unlawfully. (Para 31 )
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
These three writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India have been filed by three Private Tour Operators (PTOs) challenging the communications dated 31.05.2018 issued by the Ministry of Minority Affairs rejecting their applications submitted for registration of PTOs for Haj 2018. The applications of petitioners have been rejected for not fulfilling few conditions as enumerated in Annexure A of PTO Policy for Haj 2018.
2. The Haj Pilgrimage by Muslims all over the world has been treated as of utmost religious importance and Muslims all over the world have been going for Haj Pilgrimage to Makkah and Madina for last several centuries. Until year 2002, the Saudi Arabian Government was directly allotting visas for Haj to the private tour operators and separately allotting quota of visas for the Haj pilgrims travelling through the Haj Committee of India. Thereafter the Saudi Government started allotting one single quota of Haj visas to the Government of India, who in turn would allot part of the said quota to the PTOs and retained part of the said quota for itself for allotment through the Haj Committee of India.
3. The policy for allotment of quota to the private tour operators has been issued by the Government of India from time to time. The Policy for registration of private tour operators for Haj 2013 came for consideration before this Court and this Court after elaborate consideration approved the Haj Policy 2013 with certain modifications. This Court by its judgment dated 16.04.2013 in Union of India Vs. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan, (2013) 4 SCC 699, approved the Haj Policy 2013, Appendix I of the judgment contained the policy for registration of private tour operators – Haj 2013, the terms and conditions for registration of Private Tour Operators (PTOs) for Haj 2013 in Annexure-A, in Annexure-B other important instructions/guidelines for Haj 2013 and in Annexure-C application for registration as Private Tour Operators (PTOs). The policy was initially directed to remain valid for five years, i.e., 2013-2017. The Government of India has extended the said policy for the year 2018. The proceeding for formulation of fresh policy for the next five years, i.e., 2019 onwards is in process, we, however, in the present writ petitions are only concerned with the Haj Policy of 2018.
4. After 2013 also, there has been various subsequent decisions by this Court while considering Haj Policy for subsequent years, which shall be noticed by us little later. The Government of India (Ministry of Minority Affairs) vide its circular dated 09.12.2017 issued policy for Private Tour Operators for Haj 2018. The applications were invited on or before 05.01.2018. Annexure A to the policy was “Terms and Conditions for Registration of Private Tour Operators (PTOs) for Haj 2018”. Annexure B contained “Other Important Instructions/Guidelines for Haj 2018. Annexue contained “Application for Registration as Private Tour Operator (PTO)” Haj 2018. All the petitioners in pursuance of the said circular has submitted their applications for registration for Haj 2018. After certain queries, separate communication dated 31.05.2018 has been issued to petitioners refusing registration of them as Private Tour Operators for Haj 2018, which communication has been challenged.
5. The prayers made in all the writ petitions being identical, it is sufficient to notice the prayers made in the Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018. which are to the following effect:
“(a) Declare that the order dated 31.05.2018 by the respondent is illegal and unconstitutional and consequentially, issue Mandamus to the respondent to register petitioner as a PTO for Haj 2018 and allot appropriate quota;
(b) Alternatively, Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent to grant registration to the petitioner as PTO for conducting Haj Tour, 2019;
(c) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and
