Supreme Court Rules on Private Tour Operators’ Registration for Haj 2018: Compensation Granted for Unjust Rejection

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ruby Tour Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India, examined the rejection of applications by private tour operators (PTOs) for conducting Haj 2018 tours. The petitioners, including Ruby Tour Services Pvt. Ltd., Nawab Travels Pvt. Ltd., and Hiba Exports India, challenged the Ministry of Minority Affairs’ decision to reject their applications on various technical grounds. The Supreme Court upheld some of these rejections but also granted compensation where the rejection was found to be unjustified.

Background of the Case

Haj pilgrimage is one of the most significant religious journeys for Muslims worldwide. Until 2002, the Saudi Arabian Government directly allotted visas to private tour operators (PTOs) and separately assigned quotas for pilgrims traveling through the Haj Committee of India. Since then, the Saudi Government has allocated a single quota of Haj visas to the Government of India, which, in turn, distributes a portion to PTOs and retains the rest for allotment through the Haj Committee.

Over the years, the Indian government has issued policies for the registration of PTOs to regulate their role in organizing Haj pilgrimages. The Haj Policy 2013 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan (2013) and was set to remain valid for five years (2013-2017). The same policy was extended to 2018 while a new policy for subsequent years was under discussion.

Legal Dispute

The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the rejection of their applications for registration as PTOs for Haj 2018. The Ministry of Minority Affairs had cited various deficiencies in their applications, leading to rejection. The petitioners sought relief in the form of registration, allotment of Haj quotas, or compensation for the losses incurred due to non-registration.

Arguments by Petitioners

Ruby Tour Services Pvt. Ltd.

• The petitioner argued that it was a qualified PTO from 2002 to 2015 and in 2017 and had always complied with government regulations.
• It contended that the rejection was based on two incorrect grounds: failure to meet turnover requirements and non-compliance with building lease documentation requirements.
• It submitted that a turnover of INR 2.16 crore had been recorded in 2015-16, and any minor errors in documentation were unintentional.

Nawab Travels Pvt. Ltd.

• The petitioner had been a registered PTO for multiple years and had consistently fulfilled the eligibility criteria.
• It argued that its rejection was based on minor typographical errors in the name and passport number of its tour assistant in the Munazzim Card and Haj Visa documents.
• The petitioner claimed that these errors should not have resulted in outright rejection as they did not affect the substantive eligibility.

Hiba Exports India

• The petitioner, a recruitment and Haj service provider, argued that it had previously provided Haj services in 2002, 2009, 2010, and 2011.
• It claimed that it had submitted valid rental receipts for accommodations arranged in Saudi Arabia.
• It contested the government’s finding that the receipts were issued by an entity different from the one with which the contract was signed.

Arguments by the Union of India

The Union of India defended its decision, stating:

• Ruby Tour Services Pvt. Ltd. had submitted financial documents for a proprietorship firm instead of its current private limited company entity, which made its turnover claim inapplicable.
• The errors in Nawab Travels’ documents raised credibility concerns, particularly in government dealings where precise documentation is essential.
• Hiba Exports India had failed to explain discrepancies in its rental agreements, and its receipts did not match the contracts provided.
• The government had followed established criteria, and any rejection was based on valid technical grounds.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court reviewed the documents and the procedural fairness in rejecting the applications. The Court made the following key observations:

• The rejection of Ruby Tour Services Pvt. Ltd. was justified as it had failed to establish continuity in its financial records from proprietorship to private limited company.
• The rejection of Nawab Travels Pvt. Ltd. was unwarranted, as the errors in the Munazzim Card and passport number were trivial and should not have led to outright rejection.
• The rejection of Hiba Exports India was valid because the discrepancies in its rental receipts raised serious doubts about the authenticity of its claim.

The Court emphasized:

“In the face of repeated failures on part of the petitioners to remove deficiencies, no permission to make admissions for the current academic session could have been granted unless and until, on physical verification, everything was found to be in order.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The writ petitions of Ruby Tour Services Pvt. Ltd. and Hiba Exports India were dismissed as their applications had substantive deficiencies.
• The writ petition of Nawab Travels Pvt. Ltd. was allowed, and the Court directed the government to pay compensation of INR 5 lakh within two months for the wrongful rejection.
• If the compensation was not paid within two months, it would accrue simple interest at 15% per annum.

Impact of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the necessity of following procedural fairness in government decisions affecting businesses and individuals. While it upheld the government’s right to enforce compliance strictly, it also acknowledged that minor errors should not lead to undue rejections.

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms the importance of maintaining documentation accuracy in government processes. It also highlights the role of courts in providing relief when administrative decisions are found to be arbitrary. The ruling sets a precedent for future disputes regarding procedural compliance in the allocation of Haj pilgrimage quotas.

Petitioner Name: Ruby Tour Services Pvt. Ltd., Nawab Travels Pvt. Ltd., Hiba Exports India.
Respondent Name: Union of India.
Judgment By: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 30-07-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ruby Tour Services P vs Union of India Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-07-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Other Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category