REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4 OF 2019

FEDERATION HAJ PTOS OF INDIA .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA .....RESPONDENT(S)

W I T H

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 26 OF 2019

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 33 OF 2019

A N D

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 93 OF 2019

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 4 and 33 of 2019 are

the Federation/Association of the Private Tour Operators (PTOs)/

Haj Group Organisers (HGOs) who have taken up the cause on

behalf of their members, namely, various PTOs/HGOs.  Other two

writ petitions are filed by the PTOs themselves.  The issue raised

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 1 of 22

in all these petitions is common.  For this reason these petitions

were clubbed together and counsel for all the parties were heard.

We  now  proceed  to  decide  the  controversy  by  this  common

judgment.

2) For  Muslims,  place  of  birth  of  Hazrat  Muhammed,  i.e.  Saudi

Arabia, is the most sacred place.  Visiting that place is pilgrimage

for Muslim community, which is known as performing ‘Haj’.  It is

the desire of every person of Muslim faith, living anywhere in this

world, to visit Saudi Arabia for performing Haj, which is normally

during the last month of the Islamic calendar being eleven days

shorter than the Gregorian calendar since the dates cannot be

fixed in the latter.  As the number of pilgrims during this period is

unbounded,  the  Kingdom  of  Saudi  Arabia  has  regulated  and

restricted,  in  public  interest  and  for  the  safety  of  the  pilgrims

themselves, the number of persons who can visit Saudi Arabia

and perform Haj, from time to time.  In the process, number of

persons from each country to visit Saudi Arabia has also been

restricted.   Towards  this  end,  a  bilateral  agreement  is  signed

between  the  Government  of  India  and  the  Kingdom  of  Saudi

Arabia whereby the latter Government assigns a fixed number of

pilgrims that are permitted to visit  and perform Haj.   Since the

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 2 of 22

share of Indian pilgrims is limited by numbers, based on such a

bilateral agreement, the Government of India also formulates its

Haj Policy for smooth operations, particularly keeping in mind the

interest of these pilgrims (who are known as Hajjis).   This Haj

Policy, inter alia, provides for eligibility and registrations of PTOs

and HGOs as well who act as tour operators for these pilgrims.

Purpose is to ensure complete package from the start of journey

from defined places in India to Saudi Arabia, their arrangements

for stay and performance of Haj and their smooth and safe return

back to India.  Out of the overall  number of pilgrims, relatively

small portion is assigned for PTOs and the rest of the pilgrims are

taken care of by the Haj Committee of India.

3) The Haj Policy, which is formulated by the Government of India

from  time  to  time,  lays  down  various  eligibility  conditions  for

registration for ferrying pilgrims for Haj.   It  has, however, been

noticed that PTOs/HGOs normally feel aggrieved by one or the

other  conditions for  registrations in  such Haj  Policies.   Similar

kind of dispute has now arisen in respect of HGOs Policy 2019-

2023 dated December 20, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Haj

Policy’)  captioned as  ‘Policy  for  Haj  Group Organisers for  Haj

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 3 of 22

2019-23  –  Registration  and  allocation  of  Haj  quota  for  Haj  –

2019’.

4) We may mention at this stage that before formulating a particular

Haj Policy the Government of India normally invites suggestions/

improvements from the PTOs/HGOs.  In respect of the aforesaid

Haj  Policy  as  well,  such  suggestions  were  invited  which  were

given by the Federation and Association of these PTOs/HGOs.

However,  the  petitioners  still  felt  aggrieved  by  some  of  the

eligibility  conditions  and  other  provisions  contained  in  this  Haj

Policy.

5) It may also be mentioned at this very stage that the earlier policy

for PTOs for Haj 2013-17 was framed after a lengthy process of

discussion on which detailed arguments were heard by this Court

and it was ultimately approved vide judgment dated April 16, 2013

which  is  reported  as  Union  of  India  and  Others  v.  Rafique

Shaikh Bhikan and Another1.  It remained valid for five years

and  thereafter  the  PTO Policy  was  reviewed  by  a  Haj  Policy

Review  Committee  constituted  for  the  purpose  and  they

suggested new framework for Haj 2018-22.  Meanwhile, during

the pendency of the finalisation of the recommendation for next

1 (2013) 4 SCC 699

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 4 of 22

five year Policy, previous Haj Policy for PTOs was extended for

Haj  2018  as  well.   The  Government  assigned  the  work  of

formulation  of  next  five  year  Policy  to  Indian  Institute  of

Technology (IIT), Delhi.  Accordingly, IIT Delhi suggested a new

Policy for PTOs/HGOs and the draft Policy was placed in public

domain vide Press Release dated November  16,  2018 on the

website  of  the  Ministry  of  Minority  Affairs  (MoMA)  for  any

suggestions/comments for improvement of the draft Policy to be

submitted by November 30,  2018 to the Ministry.   In  the draft

Policy  for  PTOs  for  Haj  2019-23,  several  simplifications  and

modifications were made over the previous Policy.  The following

nine  eligibility  conditions  required  in  the  previous  Policy  have

been removed in the new Policy:

(i) To simplify the financial criteria for assessment, reduce the

requirements  and  to  remove  any  discretion  due  to  varying

accounting  definitions.   Requirement  of  Minimum  Capital

employed was removed.

(ii) To  reduce  the  documentation  for  filing  application,

requirement for assessing eligibility and to simplify the application

process.   Requirement  of  furnishing  proof  of  payment  for

accommodation/air  travel (for the registered HGOs of 2013-17)

was removed.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 5 of 22

For reducing the requirements for assessing eligibility, less

documentation  and  simplified  application  process  and  also  to

reduce the chances of error in the application process leading to

rejection, following criteria has been removed:

(iii) Requirement of giving employees details.

(iv) Requirement  of  giving details  of  Maktab No.  and service

provider.

(v) Requirement  of  giving  details  of  arrival/departure  of

pilgrims.

(vi) Requirement of furnishing details of transport arrangement

in KSA.

(vii) Requirement  of  furnishing details  of  orientation/training of

pilgrims.

(viii) Requirement  of  furnishing  details  of  local  correspondent

company in KSA.

(ix) To remove ambiguity and duplicity in the HGO policy and to

make the application process simple.   Annexure of  application

format was removed.

6) Further, following seven provisions of the Terms and Conditions

have been simplified/clarified at the stage of draft Policy:

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 6 of 22

(i) To  give  relief  to  the  PTOs  and  to  save  them  from

unnecessary  harassment,  the  provision  for  PTOs  involved  in

court cases/adverse police report has been simplified.  Now only

PTOs involved in heinous crimes and Haj related court cases will

be barred.

(ii) To give relief given to the small PTOs, the requirement of

office area has been lowered.  This has also reduced financial

burden on the HGOs for purchasing/hiring large offices.

(iii) The requirement of layout plan has been simplified.  Now

the  PTOs  need  not  run  around  State/District  authorities  for

validating the layout plan of offices.

(iv) Provision  for  the  new  entrants  and  the  documentary

requirements  were  given  in  detail  to  remove  ambiguity  and

improved transparency.  Uniform system of assessment for new

PTOs.

(v) The Annexures of the HGO Policy have been simplified to

simplify  the application process (only one Annexure describing

the  eligibility  conditions  and  another  Annexure  regarding

important instructions and guidelines).

(vi) To remove ambiguity, the requirement of agreement/receipt

of accommodation clarified.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 7 of 22

(vii) To  remove  ambiguity,  requirement  of  Affidavit/declaration

clarified wherever mentioned in the previous policy were clarified

in the draft policy.

7) Comments were received from more than 180 individual PTOs

and the PTO Associations, including Indian Federation Haj PTOs

of  India and jointly  by other  PTO Associations.   All  the issues

raised by the PTOs and their Associations were examined in the

Ministry.   These suggestions/comments were considered in the

Ministry  in  consultation  with  the  IIT  Delhi.   Taking  into

consideration  the  suggestions/comments  received  on  the  draft

Policy,  twelve  changes/modifications  were  made  in  the  draft

Policy  and  final  Policy  was circulated on  December  20,  2018.

The changes/modifications in the final Policy vis-a-vis draft Policy

are as under:

(i) HGOs renamed as Haj Group Organisers (HGO) – This has

given a separate identity to the Haj PTOs and distinguished them

from general tour operators.

(ii) Amount  of  security  deposit  reduced  to  Rs.30  lakhs  for

Category-I  HGOs  and  Rs.35  lakhs  for  Category-I*  HGOs  –

reduced  financial  burden  on  the  HGOs  by  Rs.  5  lakh  for

Category-I HGOs and Rs. 10 lakhs for Category-I* HGOs.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 8 of 22

(iii) Distribution  formula  modified  to  ensure  allocation  of

minimum number of seats during each year of the Policy period to

Category-I*,  Category-I  and  Category-II  HGOs  –  this  gives

allocation  of  minimum assured  seats  to  each  category  during

each of the years of the Policy period.  PTOs may plan for the

long term arrangements in Saudi Arabia on the basis of minimum

assured allocation of seats.

(iv) It has been ensured that higher category HGO gets more

quota  than  a  lower  category  HGO –  this  is  to  ensure  that  a

reasonable difference is maintained among different category of

PTOs.  To safeguard minimum allocation of seats to Category-I*,

Category-I  and  Category-II  HGOs,  the  following  proviso  was

added below Stage-I:

"In case of non-allocation of minimum 70, 60 and 50 seats to any of the Cat-1*, Cat-1 and Cat-2 HGOs, the surplus seats  will  first  be  distributed  among  the  HGOs  in  that category.  If there is shortfall in more than one category, surplus seats will first be distributed to Cat-1*, Cat-1 and Cat-2 HGOs in order of  priority.   Only after  fulfilling the minimum earmarked seats in all categories, to the extent possible, the surplus seats, if any, will be distributed as per stage-II.”

(v) In  case  of  surplus  seats  generated  after  allocation  of

Category-II  HGOs,  the  available  seats  will  be  allocated  to

Category-I*  and  Category-I  respectively  subject  to  their  upper

limits – this will enable higher category PTOs to get more quota.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 9 of 22

(vi) Mid-term  review  of  the  policy  after  two  years  –  this  will

provide an opportunity to review the policy mid way instead of

after  completion  of  five  years  and  make  mid  term corrections

within the broad policy framework.

(vii) Requirement  of  submission  of  proof  of  payment  for

accommodation/air  travel  clarified  for  the  registered  HGOs  of

2013  to  2017.   The  HGOs  registered  during  previous  policy

period  are  dispensed  with  submission  of  these  documents  –

simplified the documents and application process.

(viii) Annual turnover criteria clarified.  Only one year documents

are  required  now  –  removed  ambiguity  and  reduced  the

documentation.

(ix) The time for reporting of HGOs to CGI Jeddah after their

arrival in Saudi Arabia has been increased to 48 hours – relief to

HGOs.  The time of reporting has been doubled from 24 hours to

48 hours.

(x) The year for which the new entrants are required to submit

details of umrah pilgrims has been clarified – removed ambiguity

and confusion and HGOs.

(xi) Director of a company has been added as Munazzim of the

HGO – expanded the ambit  of  Munazzim of  HGOs to  include

Director of a company.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 10 of 22

(xii) Disclosure  statement  under  point  3  of  Annexure-II  made

elaborate  with  provision  for  furnishing  details  of  arrangements

made in Saudi Arabia, package cost and the agreement signed

with  the  pilgrims –  this  will  improve  transparency  in  the  HGO

business.

8) It is only after due examination of the issues raised/suggestions

made  on  the  PTO Policy,  that  the  final  Policy  for  HGOs was

approved  by  the  competent  authority  in  the  Ministry  and

circulated on December 20, 2018.  Thereafter,  final Policy was

announced, as mentioned above.   

9) Grievance  of  the  petitioners  is  that  some  of  their  vital

suggestions, though quite reasonable and justified, have not been

incorporated while finalising the Haj Policy.

10) In the first three writ petitions, notice was issued on January 11,

2019, returnable on January 16, 2019.  On January 16, 2019, the

following order was passed:

"Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, has very fairly stated that the Government is open to the suggestions which can be made by the petitioner- Federation.  For this purpose, the Hon’ble Minister is ready to give hearing to the representation(s) of the Federation on 17.01.2019 at 11:00 a.m.

We  are  happy  to  note  that  the  parties  are maintaining that it  shall not be treated as an adversarial

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 11 of 22

litigation and if some suitable formula is devised, which is acceptable to all the parties, that would be an ideal thing.

List on 23.01.2019.”

11) Pursuant to the said order, representatives of the Federation and

Association  met  the  Hon’ble  Minister  on  January  17,  2019

bringing to his notice their grievances which are raised in these

writ  petitions.   During  the  course  of  hearing,  this  Court  was

informed  that  the  representative  of  the  HGO  associations

submitted before the Hon’ble Minister that they have devised a

new  formula  for  distribution  of  seats.   Three  petitioner

associations submitted their written representations to the Chair.

The representations contained eight proposals/suggestions.  After

deliberations, the representatives of HGO associations prioritised

their three proposals/suggestions as under:

(i) The total quota of 50,000 seats allocated to HGOs may be

distributed  without  any  condition,  i.e.  without  imposing  the

condition to charge additional seats over and above 45,000 seats

at the rate of HcoI.

(ii) The HGOs may be divided in two categories on the basis of

their experience with turnover of Rs.1 crore and Rs.2 crore for

Category-II and Category-I HGOs respectively.  50 seats may be

distributed to each eligible HGO and the remaining seats may be

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 12 of 22

distributed to Category-I HGOs on pro-rata basis on the basis of

number of years of experience.

(iii) IBAN  receipts  may  be  accepted  as  valid  document  for

receipt of accommodation.

After  due  examination  of  the  feasibility  of  the  aforesaid

proposal, the respondent has agreed with suggestions (i) and (iii).

However, it did not find suggestion (ii) to be feasible.

12) In  view  of  the  above,  very  limited  controversy  pertaining  to

suggestion (ii) above now remains to be resolved.

13) Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned senior counsel appearing in one of

these  petitions,  insisted  that  suggestion  (ii)  mentioned  above

should have been accepted.  According to him, Category-I* and

Category I, eligibility for which is turnover of Rs.5 crores and Rs.3

crores  respectively,  is  unreasonable.  Instead,  there  should  be

only two categories with turnover of Rs.2 crores and Rs.1 crore

respectively.   It  was  emphasised  by  him,  which  was  also  the

argument of the other counsel who represented the petitioners in

the other writ petitions, that fixation of turnover of Rs. 5 crores/Rs.

3 crores is exceptionally high.  It is contended that for achieving

such a turnover, HGOs may fix very high rates of package for

pilgrims which may not be in the interest of the pilgrims.  They

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 13 of 22

relied upon the following discussion contained in Union of India

and Others  v.  Rafique Shaikh Bhikan and Another2 wherein

this Court emphasised that the main purpose of Haj Policy was to

ensure that pilgrims may be able to perform their pilgrimage duty

without undertaking any difficulty, harassment or suffering:

"11.   The  pilgrim  is  actually  the  person  behind  all  this arrangement.  For many of the pilgrims Haj is once in a lifetime pilgrimage and they undertake the pilgrimage by taking out the savings made over a lifetime, in many cases especially for this purpose.  Haj consists of a number of parts and each one of them has to be performed in a rigid, tight  and  time-bound  schedule.   In  case  due  to  any mismanagement  in  the  arrangements  regarding  the journey to Saudi Arabia or stay or travelling inside Saudi Arabia  any  of  the  parts  is  not  performed  or  performed improperly then the pilgrim loses not only his life savings but more importantly he loses the Haj.  It is not unknown that  on  landing  in  Saudi  Arabia  a  pilgrim  finds  himself abandoned and completely stranded.

12.   It  is,  thus,  clear  that  in  making  selection  for  the registration of PTOs the primary object and purpose of the exercise cannot be lost sight of.  The object of registering PTOs is not to distribute the Haj seats to them for making business profits but to ensure that the pilgrim may be able to  perform  his  religious  duty  without  undergoing  any difficulty, harassment or suffering.  A reasonable profit to the PTO is only incidental to the main object.”

14) They also referred to the following passages from that judgment,

as per which annual turnover of Rs. 1 crore only was fixed:

"Annual turnover of Rs. 1 crore

25.  Many objections were raised against the requirement to furnish documents showing minimum annual turnover of Rs. 1 crore for the years 2009-2010 or 2010-11.

2 (2012) 6 SCC 265

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 14 of 22

26.  Mr. N. Rao, Senior Advocate appearing for a group of private  operators/travel  agents,  in  the  course  of  his submissions, admitted that the turnover on the basis of a quota  of  50  Haj  pilgrims  alone  would  not  be  less  than Rs.75 lakhs.  This means that if a private operator/travel agent is asking for a readymade business package worth Rs.75  lakhs  in  turnover  he/she  should  at  least  show a turnover  of  rupees  one  crore  from  his  own  business. Seen,  thus,  the turnover fixed in the Government  policy appears to be a modest figure.”

15) It was submitted that in the instant Policy, while fixing the criteria

of  experience-cum-financial  strength,  the respondent had given

more emphasis  on the financial  aspects  thereby sidelining the

aspect of experience.  It was pointed out that many members of

these  Federation/Association  had  experience  of  fourteen  to

seventeen  Haj  operations.   However,  they  were  not  given

Category-I* as their turnover was less than Rs.5 crores.  It was

further argued that this Court in its aforesaid judgment, as can be

seen from paragraphs 25 and 26 cited above, had applied the

doctrine  of  proportionality,  which  was  given  a  go-by.   It  was

emphasised  that  since  the  quota  is  in  the  hands  of  the

Government  and only limited seats are allotted to each PTOs/

HGOs,  it  is  difficult  to  have a  turnover  of  Rs.5  crores  without

hiking the cost for pilgrims.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 15 of 22

16) From the events mentioned above, particularly those that led to

formulating  the  Haj  Policy  for  2019-23,  it  is  apparent  that  the

Policy is based on data collected and compiled in the study by IIT

Delhi,  an  expert  body.   Further,  views  of  the  stakeholders,

including the petitioners, were invited and duly considered.  The

respondent  has  categorically  submitted  that  the  aforesaid

demand  of  the  petitioners  is  not  based  on  any  factual  data,

whereas  the  decision  taken  by  the  Ministry  is  based  on  data

collected and compiled in the study by IIT Delhi.  Secondly, the

petitioners’ suggestion is  only to  take experience into account,

whereas  the  Ministry  has  considered  both  experience  and

financial strength, as recommended in the IIT Delhi study itself.  It

is  submitted  that  where  1,75,000  people  embark  upon  a

pilgrimage, financial strength of the PTO is of utmost importance

and  cannot  be  overlooked.   Financial  strength  is  important

because when the pilgrims travel to Saudi Arabia, the PTOs are

required to make all arrangements for transportation, air travel,

boarding and lodging, local transportation and provision of guide,

etc.  It  is submitted that the Ministry cannot afford to take any

chance on this aspect as the lack of adequate financial strength

of the PTOs may result in the pilgrims becoming stranded in a

foreign country or facing other hardships.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 16 of 22

17) Additionally,  it  is  submitted  by  the  respondent  that  if  the

suggestion of the petitioners is accepted, there would be eleven

sub-categories amongst Category-I, inasmuch as what is sought

by them is allocation of seats on a pro-rata basis depending on

the number of years of experience.  This would result in major

structural  changes,  which  is  not  advisable  and  cannot  be

accepted.

18) Going  by  the  aforesaid  considerations,  the  respondent  has

carved  out  the  categories  of  HGOs  on  the  parameters  of

experience  as  well  as  financial  strength  of  HGOs.   Such  a

decision is based on policy considerations.  It cannot be said that

this decision is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.  It is settled

law that policy decisions of the Executive are best left to it and a

court  cannot  be  propelled  into  the  unchartered  ocean  of

Government  policy  {See  Benett  Coleman & Co.  v.  Union of

India3}.   Public  authorities  must  have  liberty  and  freedom  in

framing the policies.  It is well accepted principle that in complex

social, economic and commercial matters, decisions have to be

taken by governmental authorities keeping in view several factors

and it is not possible for the courts to consider competing claims

3 (1972) 2 SCC 788

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 17 of 22

and  to  conclude  which  way  the  balance  tilts.   Courts  are  ill-

equipped to substitute their decisions. It is not within the realm of

the courts to go into the issue as to whether there could have

been a better policy and on that parameters direct the Executive

to formulate, change, vary and/or modify the policy which appears

better to the court.  Such an exercise is impermissible in policy

matters.  In  Bennett Coleman’s case, the Court explained this

principle in the following manner:

"The argument of the petitioners that Government should have accorded greater priority to the import of newsprint to supply  the  need  of  all  newspaper  proprietor  to  the maximum extent is a matter relating to the policy of import and this Court  cannot  be propelled into the unchartered ocean of governmental policy.”

19) The scope of judicial review is very limited in such matters.  It is

only when a particular policy decision is found to be against a

statute or it offends any of the provisions of the Constitution or it

is  manifestly  arbitrary,  capricious or  mala fide,  the court  would

interfere with such policy decisions.  No such case is made out.

On  the  contrary,  views  of  the  petitioners  have  not  only  been

considered  but  accommodated  to  the  extent  possible  and

permissible.   We  may,  at  this  junction,  recall  the  following

observations from the judgment in Maharashtra State Board of

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 18 of 22

Secondary  &  Higher  Secondary  Education  v.  Paritosh

Bhupeshkumar Sheth4:

"16...  The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body.  It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement.  But  any  drawbacks  in  the  policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even  a  foolish  one,  and  that  it  will  not  really  serve  to effectuate the purposes of the Act.  The Legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what  policy  should  be  pursued  in  relation  to  matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by  the  Court  unless  the  particular  provision  impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the  sense  of  its  being  wholly  beyond  the  scope  of  the regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitation imposed by the Constitution.”

20) We may also usefully refer to the judgment in State of Madhya

Pradesh v. Nandlan Jaiswal5.  In this judgment, licence to run a

liquor shop granted in favour of A was challenged as arbitrary and

unreasonable.   The  Supreme  Court  held  that  there  was  no

fundamental  right  in  a citizen to carry on trade or  business in

liquor.  However, the State was bound to act in accordance with

law and not according to its sweet will or in an arbitrary manner

and it could not escape the rigour of Article 14.  Therefore, the

contention that  Article 14 would have no application in a case

4 (1984) 4 SCC 27 5 (1986) 4 SCC 566

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 19 of 22

where the licence to manufacture or sell liquor was to be granted

by the State Government was negatived by the Supreme Court.

The Court, however, observed:

"But,  while  considering  the  applicability  of  Article  14  in such a case, we must bear in mind that, having regard to the nature of  the trade or business, the Court would be slow to  interfere  with  the  policy  laid  down by the  State Government for grant of licences for manufacture and sale of  liquor.   The  Court  would,  in  view  of  the  inherently pernicious nature of the commodity allow a large measure of  latitude  to  the  State  Government  in  determining  its policy  of  regulating,  manufacture  and  trade  in  liquor. Moreover, the grant of licences for manufacture and sale of liquor would essentially be a matter of economic policy where  the  Court  would  hesitate  to  intervene  and  strike down  what  the  State  Government  had  done,  unless  it appears to be plainly arbitrary, irrational or mala fide.”

21) It is not necessary to multiply the cases as the aforesaid principle

can be said to be cast in stone.  It is, therefore, difficult to agree

to the aforesaid argument of the petitioners.

22) In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 93 of 2019, the petitioner has made an

alternate submission as well, which is based on the facts of its

case.  It  is pointed out that in 2017-18 this petitioner was fully

capable and, in a position, to earn turnover of more than Rs.3

crores  but  was  prevented  from operating  any  Haj  services  on

account of respondent’s willful neglect in registering the petitioner

as Category-I PTO for that year.  The petitioner filed Writ Petition

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 20 of 22

(Civil)  No.  508 of  2017,  which was allowed by this  Court  vide

orders dated May 08, 2018 in the following manner:

"We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

Respondent  sought  to  dispute  the  receipt  of  the application sent  by the petitioner by post  for  Category I registration.  However, with the rejoinder the petitioner has filed the proof of having sent such an application by courier service.   To this  aspect,  despite time taken,  there is  no rebuttal.

Result of the aforesaid is that the petitioner has to be  treated  as  having  been  duly  applied  for  registration under Category I in 2017 which was wrongfully denied to him on account of the application not being taken up.  For any further consideration of Registration in Category I, this period has, thus, to be counted in favour of the petitioner.

Insofar as year 2018 is concerned, the petitioner has already applied  and learned counsel  for  the respondent states that the application of  the petitioner shall  be duly considered  as  he  meets  the  requirement  of  number  of years  of  providing  service  for  consideration  under Category I.

His statement is taken on record.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.”

23) It is argued that this direction was meant to ensure that for future

years, the petitioner is deemed to have completed the Haj 2017.

However, since it  was prevented from any Haj turnover for the

year 2017, because of the fault of the respondent, the petitioner

would not be able to meet the requirement of turnover for the year

2017.  It is further mentioned that for the Financial Year 2018, the

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 21 of 22

petitioner  has  already  come  close  to  crossing  the  turnover

threshold of  Rs.3 crores despite the Financial  Year not  having

expired.  Therefore, turnover of Financial Year 2018 be taken into

consideration for assigning category to the petitioner.

24) Insofar as this prayer of the petitioner is concerned, we find that

there is a merit in the contention of the petitioner that as far as

turnover for the year 2017 is concerned, the petitioner should not

be made to suffer.  Therefore, the petitioner’s case be considered

by the competent authority having regard to the aforesaid peculiar

facts and circumstances and necessary orders passed thereon

within a period of one week.

25) All the writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

.............................................J. (M.R. SHAH)

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 04, 2019.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 22 of 22