Experience of a sole proprietor in a proprietorship does not transfer to a new proprietor upon the former's death, as proprietorships lack perpetual succession.

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the Order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the Respondent No.1/MoMA, Haj Division whereby the Petitioner were found ineligible for registration as a Haj Organizer/HGO for Haj, 2022-2023.

2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are as follows:

• i.

• The Petitioner was established as a sole proprietorship by one Mohammed Kutty Musaliar. The proprietorship firm was engaged in business of providing Haj tours to pilgrims and was registered as an HGO for the following Haj i.e., Haj, 2002, Haj, 2003, Haj, 2005, Haj, 2006, Haj, 2007, Haj, 2008, Haj, 2009, Haj, 2010, Haj, 2011, Haj, 2012, Haj2013, Haj, 2014, Haj, 2015, Haj, 2016, Haj, 2017, Haj,

2018. ii.

A new 5 year policy for Haj titled “Policy for Haj Group Organiser for Haj 2019-23” was issued by the Ministry of Minority Affairs, Haj Division on 20.12.2018. Pursuant to which the Petitioner firm made its application as a Category I Haj Group Organizer under the HGO Policy 2019-2023. The Petitioner was subsequently recognised as a Category I Haj Group Organizer for Haj, 2019 by the Respondents on 20.05.2019. iii.

Due to the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, Haj tours were suspended by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia due to which Haj tours were not undertaken by any HGOs registered under the HGO Policy 2019-2023. During the pandemic, the sole proprietor Mohammed Kutty Musaliar passed away after contracting COVID-19.

iv.

Pursuant to the death of the erstwhile proprietor, the proprietorship firm was taken over by Muhammed Muneer Poozhikunnath who is the son of the deceased.

v.

In the year 2022, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia started accepting Haj Pilgrims pursuant to which a circular was issued by the Respondents to all registered HGOs under the 2019-23 Policy to express their willingness for participating in Haj, 2022. The interested HGOs were required to submit relevant documents confirming their eligibility under the said policy and subsequent allocation of pilgrims to the HGO. A circular dated 18.05.2022 was also issued by the Respondents whereby additional clarifications were provided vis-à-vis

Haj policy 2019-23.

vi.

The Petitioner firm thereafter sent its willingness to operate as an HGO for Haj, 2022 along with supporting documents mentioned under annexure-I under 2019-23 Policy. Subsequently, the Respondents sought clarifications from the Petitioner regarding its prior experience of conducting Haj and it was also intimated to the Petitioner firm that they do not fulfil the criteria as required under the 2019-23 Policy. An undertaking was submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondents providing the required clarifications, pursuant to which the Impugned Order finding the Petitioner ineligible for registration as an HGO for Haj, 2022 was passed by the Respondents.

3. Notice was issued in the writ petition 15.11.2022. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, a new policy titled “Registration of Haj Group Organisers (HGOs) for Haj-2023-registration and allocation of quota for Haj-2023” was issued by the Respondents whereby all HGOs regardless of their registration under the previous policy of 2019-23 were required to register a fresh as an HGO. Pursuant to the new policy being announced, this Court on 20.03.2023 allowed the Petitioner to file an application for registration as an HGO for Haj, 2023 and the Respondents were directed to file a status report after examining the applications. A report came to be submitted by the Petitioner wherein it was stated that the Petitioner had not provided a proper justification, details or documents against queries which were raised by the Respondents. It was also noted that the Petitioner failed to submit a proper break up of their GST filings or a copy of the GSTR-9 form.

5. Learned Counsel appear