The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of natural justice in the allocation process and the need for clarity and fairness in the application of the Haj Policy 2023.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These are petitions relating to various Haj Group Organizers (HGOs) and allotment of quota for Haj pilgrimage 2023. This Court has been hearing these matters from time to time.

3. The Haj Policy 2023 was announced by the Ministry of Minority Affairs (Haj Division) on 14th March, 2023. As per the said Policy, HGOs were categorized into Category 1 and Category 2 depending upon their experience and turnover.

4. Applications were called by the Ministry in terms of the Policy and a list of eligible and ineligible HGOs were declared on 5th May, 2023. Thereafter, several writ petitions were filed before this Court by HGOs which were rendered ineligible or whose names were not found in the declared list on the ground that the reasons for declaring the Petitioners ineligible were not communicated by the Ministry.

5. Considering the submissions made by the said HGOs, directions were issued by the Court vide order dated 9th May, 2023 to the following effect:

"9. Considering the fact that the reasons for declaring the Petitioners have not been communicated to the Petitioners, the opportunity to make representations by 8th May 2023 at 5pm is of no consequence, as there is no basis for filing a representation. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:

i) Let the Ministry communicate the reasons for ineligibility to the Petitioners on or before 10th May, 2023 by 6:00 pm.

ii) The Petitioners who are aggrieved by the reasons which are communicated to them are free to make their respective representations to the Ministry by 12th May, 2023 midnight, as also remove deficiencies, through the e-mail address mentioned in the public notice.

iii) The representations shall be decided by the Ministry and shall be communicated to the Petitioners through email by 6 pm on 19th May, 2023.

iv) In case any of Petitioners are found eligible, their candidature shall be considered for the allotment of the remaining visas in accordance with the Ministry's Policy."

6. In terms of the above order, the reasons for ineligibility are stated to have been communicated by the Ministry to various ineligible HGOs who were given time till 12th May, 2023 to remove the deficiencies. However, even thereafter a large number of HGOs have been declared ineligible, which has led to the filing of the present writ petitions. The said petitions have also been heard by this Court along with the previously filed petitions over the last three hearings.

7. Ld. counsels for the parties were directed to prepare a chart as to the reasons for ineligibility of the HGOs and the said charts have been perused by the Court. Charts have been filed by both sides.

W.P.(C) 6495/2023 & CM APPLs. 27734-35/2023

W.P.(C) 6496/2023 & CM APPLs. 27738-39/2023

8. In these two petitions, as per the letter dated 10th May, 2023, the deficiency leading to the Petitioners being rendered ineligible, is that the original hard copy of the FDR and the demand draft have not been submitted in terms of the Policy.

9. Today, after hearing submissions of the ld. Counsel it is clear that the hard copy of the FDR has been handed over to the Ministry along with demand draft. In both these matters, this fact is confirmed by the officials who are present in Court.

10. Accordingly, let the quota be allocated to Petitioners- Harmain Tour and Travel and Hasnain Tours and Travels in terms of the Haj Policy 2023.

11. The present petitions, along with all pending applications, are disposed of.

12. The next date of hearing in these matters stands cancelled.

W.P.(C) 7120/2023 & CM APPLs. 27750-52/2023

13. In this case, the application of the Petitioner - Al Muqaddas Tours and Travels for allotment of quota has been rejected by the Ministry on 19th May, 2023 on the ground that the earlier proprietor of the Petitioner firm has passed away, the existing experience of the Petitioner firm cannot be taken into account for the allocation of