$~35 & 36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 16.01.2026 (35)

+ LPA 779/2025, CM APPL. 80695/2025, CM APPL. 80696/2025, CM APPL. 80697/2025 & CM APPL. 80698/2025 AL RIFAI HAJ UMRAH SERVICE .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sulaiman Mohd Khan, Mr.

Gopeshwar Singh Chandel, Mr. Abdul Bari Khan, Ms. Alvina Rais Khan and Mr. Yash Vardhan Mittal, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Ms. Nyasa Sharma and Mr. Ankit Khatri, Advocates.

AND (36)

+ LPA 780/2025, CM APPL. 80745/2025, CM APPL. 80746/2025, CM APPL. 80747/2025 & CM APPL. 80748/2025 M/S MALABAR HAJJ GROUP SERVICE .....Appellant Through: Ms. Taiba Khan, Mr. Gopeshwar Singh Chandel, Mr. Abdul Bari Khan, Ms. Alvina Rais Khan and Mr. Yash Vardhan Mittal, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Ms. Nyasa Sharma and Mr. Ankit Khatri, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J (Oral

1. TheseAppealshavebeenfiled againsttheJudgementdated 09.12.2025 (“Impugned Judgement”) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Writ Petition (C) No. 14067/2025 and Writ Petition (C) No. 14092/2025 (“Writ Petitions”) filed by the Appellants challenging the Rejection Orders dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Respondent (“Rejection Orders”) and the Circulars dated 24.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 issued by the Respondent whereby restrictions / embargo was imposed for the Haj Group Operators (“HGOs”) to apply for Haj-2026 if they were found ineligible for Haj-2025 (“Circulars”).

2. The Appellants are HGOs and applied for the registration and allocation for Haj-2025, however, the same was rejected by the Respondent vide Rejection Orders. Being aggrieved by the Rejection Orders, the Appellants filed the respective Writ Petitions. The Appellants contended in the Writ Petitions that the Rejections Orders disqualifying the Appellants for registrationandallocationofquotaforHaj-2025werewhollyarbitrary,illegal and unsustainable in law. The Writ Petitions also challenged the Circulars whereby it was decided to maintain status quo with regard to the qualified HGOs under Haj-2025 for Haj-2026 and to extend the same quota to the HGOs selected under the Haj-2025 for Haj-2026 being arbitrary and discriminatory.

3. The Impugned Judgement decided that the policy for allocation of quota for Haj-2025 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Kolkata Tours &

TravelsPvt.Ltd.&Ors.v.UnionofIndia,W.P.(C)No.35/2025and,assuch, any challenge to the policy for allocation of quota for Haj-2025 stood foreclosed. For Haj-2026,the policy framed for Haj-2025 was continued with an exception of accommodation for certain waitlisted HGOs. The Impugned Judgement held that as the Appellants were not selected and formed part of the HGOs for Haj-2025, and the said policy having been upheld in Kolkata Tours (supra), and the Haj-2026 being a continuation of the Haj-2025 framework, the Appellants cannot challenge the action taken by the Respondent for not considering the allocation for quota for Haj-2026.

Accordingly, the Writ Petitions were dismissed.

4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants have submitted that the Impugned Judgement did not consider the reasons cited by the Respondent for disqualification of the Appellants vide Rejection Orders as the disqualification / rejection of the Appellants was arbitrary, illegal and in violation of fundamental rights of the Appellants. The Rejection Orders were passed in a mechanical and cryptic manner and maintaining status quo with regard to the qualified HGOs under Haj-2025 policy for Haj-2026 as well and to extend the same quota to the HGOs selected under the Haj-2025 for Haj- 2026 was arbitrary and discriminatory. Accordingly, the Appellants will not be qualified to apply for registration and allocation of Haj quota in coming years as due to disqualification / rejection of the Appellants fo