1. Dispute over government financial subsidies for Haj pilgrimage — High Court restrainment — Supreme Court interim stay due to practical difficulties. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2006 Supreme(SC) 1560
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJI., AR. LAKSHMANAN, C.K. THAKKER, JJ.
Union of India - Petitioner
Versus
B.N. Shukla And Anr. - Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).15495 of 2006
Decided on : 18-09-2006
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, SG. Mr. Tufail A. Khan, Adv. Mr. Devdatt Kamat, Adv. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.M.A. Kazmi, AG.,UP. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, Adv.
For the State of Uttar Pradesh Respondent No. 2:Mr. S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Advocate General.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, SG. Mr. Tufail A. Khan, Adv. Mr. Devdatt Kamat, Adv. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.M.A. Kazmi, AG.,UP. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, Adv.
For the State of Uttar Pradesh Respondent No. 2:Mr. S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Advocate General.
A court may grant a temporary stay on orders restraining government subsidies if immediate compliance would cause administrative chaos and financial loss, provided this does not prejudice the final legal determination regarding the validity of such grants.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Stay of order - Financial subsidies for annual pilgrimage - Balance of convenience - Practical difficulties in altering established arrangements - Potential for administrative chaos and financial liability - Temporary stay granted for a limited duration without prejudice to the final determination of legality. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The government provided financial subsidies for an annual pilgrimage. A lower court issued orders restraining the government from providing these funds. The government contended that because logistical arrangements, including tenders and international agreements for the transport of pilgrims, were already in motion and scheduled to commence shortly, a sudden change in the arrangement would lead to total chaos and significant financial liability.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the peculiar difficulties and logistical imperatives, noting that commitments had already been made for the transportation of pilgrims and that a sudden change would impact the government's reputation in the international arena.
Issues: Whether the restraint on providing financial subsidies for the current pilgrimage cycle should be stayed due to practical and logistical difficulties, pending a final decision on the legality of such grants.
Ratio Decidendi: Where immediate compliance with a restraint order would result in administrative chaos, financial liability, and international reputational damage due to pre-existing logistics and agreements, a temporary stay may be granted for a specific period. Such a stay is permissible provided it does not act as an impediment to the lower court hearing the matter and deciding the validity of the action on merits.
Result: Impugned orders stayed for the current year only to the extent they restrained the Government from providing funds or giving financial subsidies for the pilgrimage.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Government contends that altering ongoing Haj arrangements would cause chaos and huge financial liability. (Para 4 )
3. Court found that disrupting established Haj arrangements would cause chaos, thus interim stay granted for current year only. (Para 5 )
4. Stay of the impugned orders for this year only; clarification that it does not affect pending High Court hearing on merits. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, J.
Issue notice.
2. Mr. S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
3. The learned Solicitor General has brought to our notice the averments made in the affidavit dated 5th September, 2006, filed by the Director (Haj), Ministry of External Affairs, before the High Court, inter alia, pointing out the practical difficulties which would arise in case the arrangement, which has been going on for last number of years, is suddenly to be changed this year. In that affidavit, it has been stated that flights for annual Haj are likely to commence from 25th November, 2006 onwards. The process, in fact, commenced from 30th May, 2006, when Air India submitted the plan of action for Haj programme. Meetings have already been held with Saudi Arabian Airlines and Air India and invitation to tender for wet lease of aircraft was issued in June, 2006. It is stated that various logistical arrangements have to be made having regard to the Haj Committee quota. In September/October, 2006, coordination meetings on Haj embarkation will have to take place and in October, 2006, the Haj Committee will be required to pay pilgrim fare, as may be decided. Further, it has been pointed out that the Government has already signed an agreement with the concerned authority in Saudi Arabia for sending 1, 47,000 pilgrims for Haj 2006-II. One lakh of these pilgrims will be send through the Haj Committee of India. Ministry of Civil Aviation and Air India have made arrangements for transportation of these pilgrims. A commitment has been obtained from the Saudi Arabian Airlines for transporting about 60,000 pilgrims to Saudi Arabia. Air India has already issued tender notices and invited bids to wet lease for certain number of aircrafts to India to enable it to transport remaining 40,000 pilgrims.
4. In short, the contention is that for annual flights to commence around November, 2006, any amount of delay of requisite arrangements, agreements and tender would result in total chaos and huge financial liability may be imposed on the Government, besides its reputation in the international arena. We may, however, note that the writ petition has been directed to be listed for hearing by the High Court for today before the appropriate Bench for final hearing.
5. In view of the peculiar difficulties pointed out, we stay for this year only the impugned orders to the extent they restrained the Government from providing funds or giving financial subsidies to Haj yatra. In so far as its validity and legality of such financial grant is concerned, we make it clear that this order shall not, in any manner, be construed as an impediment in the hearing of the writ petition listed today before the High Court and the decision of the writ petition on merits in accordance with law. In fact, we would request the High Court to hear and expeditiously decide the writ petition so that the legal position is crystallized, at least, before such event of the year 2007.
