RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.638 OF 2018 RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD.            ... PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA      ... RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION (C) NO.646 OF 2018 M/S. NAWAB TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED      ... PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA      ... RESPONDENT AND WRIT PETITION (C) NO.668 OF 2018 M/S. HIBA EXPORTS INDIA                 ... PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA      ... RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA Date: 2018.07.30 16:44:49 IST Reason: These three writ petitions under Article 32 of the 2 Constitution of India have been filed by three Private Tour   Operators   (PTOs)   challenging   the   communications dated   31.05.2018   issued   by   the   Ministry   of   Minority Affairs   rejecting   their   applications   submitted   for registration of PTOs for Haj 2018.  The applications of petitioners have been rejected for not fulfilling few conditions  as enumerated in Annexure A of PTO Policy for Haj 2018.     2. The Haj Pilgrimage by Muslims all over the world has been treated as of utmost religious importance and Muslims   all   over   the   world   have   been   going   for   Haj Pilgrimage   to   Makkah   and   Madina   for   last   several centuries.   Until   year   2002,   the   Saudi   Arabian Government was directly allotting visas for Haj to the private tour operators and separately allotting quota of  visas  for the  Haj pilgrims travelling through  the Haj   Committee   of   India.     Thereafter   the   Saudi Government   started   allotting   one   single   quota   of   Haj visas   to   the   Government   of   India,   who   in   turn   would allot part of the said quota to the PTOs and retained 3 part of the said quota for itself for allotment through the Haj Committee of India. 3. The policy for allotment of quota to the private tour   operators   has   been   issued   by   the   Government   of India from time to time.   The Policy for registration of   private   tour   operators   for   Haj   2013   came   for consideration   before   this   Court   and   this   Court   after elaborate   consideration   approved   the   Haj   Policy­2013 with certain modifications.  This Court by its judgment dated 16.04.2013 in   Union of India Vs. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan, (2013) 4 SCC 699, a pproved the Haj Policy 2013, Appendix   I   of   the   judgment   contained   the   policy   for registration of private tour operators – Haj 2013, the terms and conditions for registration of Private Tour Operators   (PTOs)   for   Haj   2013   in   Annexure­A,   in Annexure­B other important instructions/guidelines for Haj 2013 and in Annexure­C application for registration as   Private   Tour   Operators   (PTOs).     The   policy   was initially   directed   to   remain   valid   for   five   years, i.e., 2013­2017.  The Government of India has extended the said policy for the year 2018.  The proceeding for 4 formulation of fresh policy for the next five years, i.e., 2019 onwards is in process, we, however, in the present writ petitions are only concerned with the Haj Policy of 2018. 4. After 2013 also, there has been various subsequent decisions   by   this   Court   while   considering   Haj   Policy for   subsequent   years,   which   shall   be   noticed   by   us little   later.     The   Government   of   India   (Ministry   of Minority   Affairs)   vide   its   circular   dated   09.12.2017 issued policy for Private Tour Operators for Haj 2018. The applications were invited on or before 05.01.2018. Annexure  A to the policy was “Terms and Conditions for Registration of Private Tour Operators (PTOs) for Haj­ 2018”.     Annexure   B   contained   “Other   Important Instructions/Guidelines   for   Haj­2018.   Annexue   C contained “Application for Registration as Private Tour Operator   (PTO)”   ­   Haj   2018.     All   the   petitioners   in pursuance   of   the   said   circular   has   submitted   their applications   for   registration   for   Haj­2018.   After certain   queries,   separate   communication   dated 31.05.2018   has   been   issued   to   petitioners   refusing 5 registration of them as Private Tour Operators for Haj­ 2018, which communication has been challenged. 5. The prayers made in all the writ petitions being identical, it is sufficient to notice the prayers made in the Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018. which are to the following effect:­ “(a)  Declare   that   the   order   dated 31.05.2018   by   the   respondent   is   illegal   and unconstitutional   and   consequentially,   issue Mandamus   to   the   respondent   to   register petitioner   as   a   PTO   for   Haj   2018   and   allot appropriate quota;       (b) Alternatively,   Issue   a   Writ,   order   or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and   directing   the   respondent   to   grant registration   to   the   petitioner   as   PTO   for conducting Haj Tour, 2019; (c) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature   of   Mandamus   commanding   and   directing the   respondent   to   pay   compensation   to   the petitioner for the loss occurred to it by not granting registration for Haj 2018; 6 (d)  Pass   such   other   and   further   orders   as this   Hon'ble   Court   may   think   fit   in   the interest of justice and equity.”     6. As   noted   above,   the   applications   of   petitioners were   rejected   due   to   non­compliance   of   various conditions as enumerated in Annexure A.  Application of petitioner   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   638   of   2018   has been   rejected   for   non­compliance   of   Clause   (iv)   and Clause (xi). Application of petitioner in Writ Petition (C)   No.   646   of   2018   has   been   rejected   for   non­ compliance   of   Clause   (xii),   whereas   application   of petitioner   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   668   of   2018   has been rejected for non­compliance of Clause (xi).  Thus, it is sufficient to notice Clause (iv), Clause (xi) and Clause   (xii)   of   Annexure   A   for   deciding   these   writ petitions, which are to the following effect:­

7

7. Now, we proceed to notice the facts of each writ petition. Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018 – Ruby Tour Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India  8. The   petitioner   was   a   qualified   Private   Tour Operator   from   2002   to   2015   and   2017   and   was   so registered with the Government of India.   After issue of   Haj   Policy­2013,   the   respondent   had   released   the list of qualified Private Tour Operators for the Haj­ 2013, in which name of petitioner was included at Sl. No.224   of   qualified   Private   Tour   Operators   under Category I.  In the year 2014, 2015, petitioner's name was   included   in   the   List   of   eligible   Private   Tour Operators.   Petitioner conducted services for Haj­2015 without   any   complaint.     By   press   release   dated 8 29.04.2016,   applications   were   invited   from   eligible Private Tour Operators for registration of Haj – 2016 in   response   to   which,   petitioner   applied.     The respondent vide communication dated 26.07.2016 rejected the   application   of   the   petitioner   for   Haj­2016. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 623 of   2016 against the rejection of its application for Haj­2016, in which notice was issued by this Court on 08.08.2016. The   respondent   after   the   scrutiny   of   the   application and   documents   submitted   by   the   petitioner,   found   the petitioner eligible to conduct Haj Pilgrimage for 2017 and accordingly issued certificate of registration and allotted quota of 105 pilgrims.  The Writ Petition (C) No.   623   of   2016   filed   by   the   petitioner   has   been dismissed as  infructuous.     In pursuance of Circular dated   09.12.2017   inviting   applications,   petitioner submitted   an   application   along   with   supporting documents.     Fourteen   queries   were   raised   by   the respondent   through   e­mail   dated   25.03.2018   raising different objections.  Petitioner vide its letter dated 05.04.2018 submitted reply to all the queries raised. 9 9. In   query   No.   11   regarding   turn   over   details, following was communicated: “PTO attached Turnover Certificate of 2.16 cr. of ruby tour and travels and have mentioned that   the   documents   explaining   the   same   have been attached on page 50­52 of the Application File but there are no such documents on record which explain the turnover of 2.16 cr.”                 10. Petitioner had replied the said query in its reply as follows:­ “The   Turnover   Certificate   of   INR   2.16CR   is attached herewith for your kind perusal.  The omission   error   of   Page   No.   50­52   is  highly regrettable.”  11. With   regard   to   non­compliance   of   Clause(xi)   of Annexure­A,   the   Government   noticed   the   reply   dated 05.04.2018 but has refused to register citing technical advice from empanelled Chartered Accountant Firms.   It is useful to refer to Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the letter dated 31.05.2018, which contains the consideration by the Government of India:­ 10 “2. As per Clause (iv) of Annexure A of PTO Policy, the said PTO was required to submit the turnover certificate.  On scrutiny of the documents submitted by the PTO, it has been found   that   PTO   is   not   fulfilling   the clause(iv) of Annexure A of PTO Policy for Haj 2018.   The PTO was requested to clarify the followings:­ “PTO   attached   Turnover   Certificate of 2.16 cr. of Ruby Tour and Travels and   have   mentioned   that   the documents   explaining   the   same   have been attached on page 50­52 of the Application   File   but   there   are   no such   documents   on   record   which explain the turnover of 2.16 cr.” 3. As per Clause (xi) of Annexure A of PTO Policy, the said PTO was required to submit rental receipts and a copy of lease deed, duly signed with the Saudi owners.  On scrutiny of the documents submitted by the PTO,   it has been   found   that   PTO   is   not   fulfilling   the clause   (xi)   of   Annexure   A.     The   PTO   was requested to clarify the followings:­ “In   the   invoice   copy   of   Makkah   2 invoice dated 17/08/2015 there is a 11 condition   that   PTO   should   send   the payment   on   or   before   25/07/2015 which is prima facie not possible as that   date   has   already   passed. Moreover payment made on 19/08/2015 but receipt for the same issued on 24/07/2015.   Hence the authenticity of   the   Receipt   cannot   be established.”  4. The   said   PTO   in   its   reply   clarified   as under: “The   Turnover   Certificate   of   INR 2.16CR is attached herewith for your kind perusal.  The omission error of Page   No.   50­52   is   highly regrettable.” "In   the   Invoice   copy   of   Makkah   2 Invoice   dated   17/08/2015,   the supplier   has   erroneously   typed   the wrong   sending   date   as   25/07/2015 instead of 25/08/2015, and also the receipt   issued   date   as   24/07/2015, instead   of   24/08/2015.     We   regret the oversight by supplier and hereby attach   the   swift   copy   along   with Invoice   and   Bank   Statement   details to   authenticate   the   same.     The 12 Tashree   agreement   dated   17.08.2015 also   authenticates   the   transaction done in August 2015”. 5. As per the technical advice received from the empanelled Chartered Accountant Firms and on scrutiny of the clarification/reply of the PTO,   it   has   been   observed   that   the   PTO Applicant's turnover is less than Rs.1 crore from   Haj   and   Umrah   operations   as   required under Clause (iv) of Annexure A of PTO Policy 2018.  It is further observed that the receipt of accommodation is dated prior to the date of Payment   (as   authenticated   from   the   Bank Statement   and   Foreign   exchange   Purchase Invoices).     Hence   the   Receipts   lack authenticity.  The requirements of Clause (iv) and (xi) of Annexure A of PTO Policy 2018 are not complied.”  12. The   petitioner   has   filed   additional   documents   to support   its   reply   given   on   05.04.2018.   Counter Affidavit has also been filed by the respondent. Writ Petition (C) No. 646 of 2018 – M/s. Nawab Travels Private Limited Vs. Union of India 13 13. The   petitioner   had   been   found   eligible   for   the years 2002, 2006­I, 2006­II,  2007 to  2010 and during each period, registration certificate was issued to the petitioner   and   Haj   quotas   were   also   allotted.     In response   to   the   circular   dated   09.12.2017   inviting applications for Private Tour Operators for Haj­2018, petitioner   also   submitted   an   application.     Certain clarifications were sought through online PTO portal. Petitioner   submitted   its   clarification   on   04.04.2018. By   communication   dated   31.05.2018,   the   petitioner's application was refused to register on the  ground of non­fulfillment of Clause (xii) of Annexure A.   It is useful to extract Paras 2, 3 and 4 of the communication dated 31.05.2018, which is to the following effect:­ “2. As per Clause (xii) of Annexure A of PTO Policy, the said PTO was required to submit the copy of Munazzim card and Haj visa pages of the passport of the owner/proprietor.   On scrutiny   of   the   documents   submitted   by   the PTO,   it   has   been   found   that   PTO   is   not fulfilling   the   Clause   (xii)   of   Annexure   A. The PTO was sent the following observation:­ 14 “Copies   of   Munazzim   Card   and   visa copy are not legible.” 3. The   said   PTO   in   its   reply   clarified   as under: “It   is   hereby   clarified   that   the Munazzim Card and Haj Visa is issued in the name of Tour Assistant.   We have   deputed   Mr.   Abdur   Razzaque Chand Mia as Tour Assistant for Haj 2010.   We have already submitted a drafted letter providing details of Tour   Assistant   along   with   the Application for Registration of PTO for Haj 2018 vide Page No. 199, we are   again   submitting   self­attested copy   of   the   same   for   your   kind perusal.”   4. As per the technical advice received from the empanelled Chartered Accountant Firms and on scrutiny of the clarification/reply of the PTO it has been observed that the copies of Munazim Card and Haj Visa pages copy provided in   the   Physical   file   and   uploaded   on   the portal   were   not   completely   legible.     A difference was found in the name and Passport No. as per Munazim Card and Visa Copy.  Other details were not legible.  Copies of Munazzim 15 Card   and   Visa   Copy   are   not   attached   in   the clarification.     The   same   is   required   under Clause (xii) of Annexure A of PTO Policy 2018. Hence, the copy of Munazzim card and Haj Visa pages of the passport of the owner/proprietor as required under Clause (xii) of Annexure A of PTO Policy for Haj 2018 is not complied.”  14. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Petitioner   has   also   filed   additional   documents   to support his reply. Writ Petition (C) No. 668 of 2018 – M/s. Hiba Exports India Vs. Union of India  15. The petitioner – a sole proprietor is carrying on the   business   of   recruitment   for   deployment   of   Indian workers with foreign employers, who is license holder for   last   20   years   from   Government   of   India.     The petitioner   firm   also   provided   Haj   services   to   the pilgrims for the year 2002, 2009, 2010 and 2011.   In response to registration of Private Tour Operators­Haj 2013, petitioner also submitted its application.  After response   to   the   explanations   called   for   from   the petitioner   and   submission   of   clarifications   by 16 petitioner vide letter dated 30.07.2013, petitioner was included   in   the   List   issued   on   07.01.2014.     For   the year 2014 and 2015, petitioner's name was not included as a qualified Private Tour Operator.   Petitioner had also   filed   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   413   of   2015,   in response   to   registration   for   Haj   2016,   petitioner submitted application and his name was included in the list   of   private   tour   operators   issued   on   29.04.2016. Although,   petitioner   was   included   in   the   list   of Private   Tour   Operators   for   the   draw   of   lots   as   per Press   Release   dated   29.04.2016   but   unfortunately   was not granted quota due to draw of lots.  Petitioner was thus eligible for quota of Haj Pilgrimage for 2017 even without draw of lots.   In response to application for Haj­2018,   petitioner   submitted   its   application, objections   were   raised   by   communication   dated 25.03.2018, which were duly replied.   The application of   the   petitioner   for   registration   for   Haj­2018   has been   rejected   by   communication   dated   31.05.2018.     In Paras 2 and 3 of the communication, following has been stated:­ 17 “2. As per Clause (xi) of Annexure A of PTO Policy, the said PTO was required to submit rental receipts and a copy of lease deed, duly signed   with   the   Saudi   owners.     As   per   the technical advice received from the empanelled Chartered Accountant Firms and on scrutiny of the   clarification/reply   of   the   PTO   the following has been observed: “The   PTO   has   not   submitted   Rental receipt of SAR 22500/­ for contract No.   705522   entered   with   Ali   M.A. Jabullah (Amjadus Salam) and Rental Receipt of SAR 75000/­ for Contract No.213351   entered   with   Zaid   A.A. Abid for hiring of accommodation for pilgrims,   instead   submitted   with reply   of   the   query   Receipt   Voucher No.0006   for   SAR   200000/­   issued   by Muttawiffy   Hujjaj   South   Asia Establishment   and   Receipt   Voucher No.49812 which is in Arabic and no translation   of   the   same   has   been submitted.   Hence   PTO   has   not complied   with   the   requirement   of Clause   (xi)   of   Annexure   A   of   PTO Policy” 18 4. In view of the deficiencies mentioned in Para 2 above, M/s. Hiba Exports India, D 60/4 FIRST   FLOOR   NEAR   GREEN   PARK,   METRO   STATION GATE   NO.1   YUSUF   SARAI,   NEW   DELHI­110016   has not been found eligible for registration and allocation of quota for Haj 2018.” 16. We   have   heard   Shri   Santosh   Krishnan,   learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in first two writ petitions.     We   have   also   heard   learned   counsel appearing in Writ Petition (C) No.668 of 2018.   Shri K.K. Venugopal learned Attorney General and Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General have been heard for the respondent. 17. Shri   Santosh   Krishnan,   learned     counsel   for   the petitioner  assailing the order dated 31.05.2018 of the respondent in Writ Petition No.638 of 2018 submits that the   two   reasons   given   in   the   order   dated   31.05.2018 have no basis. The petitioner had fully complied with Clause   (iv)   of   Annexure   A   since   it   has   filed   all relevant   documents   showing   turnover   of   Rs.2.16   crore during the financial year 2015­16. He refers pages 6 to 27 of additional documents filed in the writ petition 19 attacking   on   the   averments   made   in   the   counter­ affidavit that the PTO did not submit its own balance­ sheet but submitted the balance­sheet of Ruby Tours & Travels.   It   is   submitted   that   till   Haj   2015,     the petitioner   herein   was   conducting   the   service   as   a Proprietorship   Firm   under   the   name   Ruby   Tours   & Travels.   However,   from   Haj   2017   the   entity   Type   was changed to Private Limited Company and this fact having been   accepted   by   all   authorities   including   the respondent   for   Haj   2017,   the   ground   was   no   longer available to reject the registration by the respondent for   Haj   2018.   Coming   to   the   second   reason   that violation of Clause (xi), the petitioner submitted all documents   including   the   Contract   for   hiring   of buildings and rent receipts, proof of payment through authorised   channel   and   invoices   from   the   owner, however, due to a typographical error by the building owner at Saudi Arabia, date of receipt is mentioned as 25.07.2015 instead of 25.08.2015 and date of payment is mentioned as 24.07.2015 instead of 20.08.2015. A Bank statement   and   soft   copy   would   show   that   payment   was actually made on 25.08.2015. 20 18. Learned   counsel   further   submitted   that   there   has been   no   application   of   mind   by   the   respondent   while refusing registration. The respondent has mechanically followed   the   advice   given   by   Chartered   Accountant Firms.   The   rejection   was     premised   on   the   technical advice   received   from   the   empanelled   Chartered Accountant Firms which itself shows non­application of mind by the respondent. 19. Shri   K.K.   Venugopal,   learned   Attorney   General, refuting   the   above   submissions   contends   that   order rejecting registration has been issued considering the objections raised, clarifications/replies submitted and documents   submitted   by   the   petitioner.   He   submitted that   the   documents   for   turnover   submitted   by   the petitioner were the documents   of Proprietorship Firm that is Ruby Tours & Travels whereas registration was applied for Haj by the  Private Limited Company and no documents have been submitted that  Proprietorship Firm has   been   converted   into   Private   Limited   Company.   The petitioner   which   is   a   Private   Limited   Company   cannot rely   on   turnover   of     Proprietorship   Firm.   It   is 21 submitted that decision was arrived after application of mind and the rejection having been based on valid reason this Court shall not substitute its own decision with   that   of   department.   On   submission   pertaining   to second ground, it is contended that PTO’s application that   there   was   a   typographical   error,   cannot   be submitted   since   typographical   error   was   not   only   in one document but in the various documents submitted by the   PTO   which   fact   itself   raises   question   of credibility of the PTO. 20. We   have   gone   through   the   rival   submissions   and perused the records of Writ Petition No.638 of 2018. 21. For turnover the petitioner has placed reliance on certificate   of   Chartered   Accountants   dated   02.01.2018 as Annexure P­18. The certificate reads: “To whomsoever it may concern This is to certify that the Ruby Tours &   Travels   (Prop.   Nazir   Ahmed   Shaikh) having its office at 7/8, Ground Floor, 2421 East Street Galleria, East Street Camp,   Pune­411001   had   doing   the business of Haj Tours. This is also to certify that Ruby Tours 22 &   Travels   is   having   Haj   turnover   of Rs.2.16 Crore during the financial year 2015­16.  This   is   on   the   basis   of   information, explanations & records produced before me. For A S Gholkar & Co. Chartered Accountants Amit S. Gholkar (Proprietor) Place: Pune Date: 02/01/2018 Certificate No.ASG/2017­18/068.” 22. The petitioner has applied quota as Private Limited Company   which   fact   is   not   disputed.   Objection   was raised   by   query   dated   25.03.2018   that   all   documents were   submitted   for     Private   Limited   Company   but previous   quota   including   2015   were   allotted   to proprietor.   The   Type   of   entity   is   changed.   After considering the reply ultimately order dated 31.05.2018 stated that PTO’s turnover is less than Rs.1 crore as required under Clause (iv). In the counter­affidavit as well as in the oral submissions, the aforesaid ground was relied on behalf of the respondents for rejection. 23 The   petitioner   has   filed   rejoinder­affidavit   to   the counter­affidavit in which petitioner submits that till Haj   2015   petitioner   was   conducting   service   as   a Proprietorship   Firm   under   the   name   Ruby   Tours   & Travels,   however,   from   Haj   2017   the   entity   Type   was changed   to   Private   Limited   Company.   The   PTO   who   has applied   for   registration   is   admittedly   a   Private Limited Company and the turnover which is relied was of a   Proprietorship   Firm.   It   is   not   the   case   that   the Company   having   incorporated   after   the   Proprietor business was closed. It is not a case of conversion of Proprietorship   Firm   into   Company.   No   documents   have been submitted that Proprietorship Firm sold its entire business to the Company. It is also relevant to point out   that   when   the   petitioner   had   applied   for registration for Haj 2016, the objection was raised by letter   dated   07.06.2016   of   the   respondent   where following was stated: “2(vi).     In   the   application   form   the PTO   has   mentioned   it   is   a proprietorship   firm   but   as   per documents   provided   it   is   a   private limited company. Further, the names of all directors are also not disclosed.” 24 23. Thus,   the   petitioner   was   well   aware   of   the objections  raised by the respondent under Clause (iv) regarding   turnover   relied   by   the   petitioner   being   of different   entity.   The   position   ought   to   have   been explained by the petitioner by submitting all relevant documents   including   conversion   of   Proprietorship   Firm into   Private   Limited   Company   with   transfer   of   its assets   and   liabilities.   The   fact   that   turnover   of different entity was relied, the decision rejecting the registration cannot be said to be perverse or based on no   material.   Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   laid much emphasis that for the Haj 2017 when the petitioner was granted registration, it was not open to respondent to   raise   objections   again.   Learned   Attorney   General submitted that there are large number of applications every   year   and   there   being   time   constraint   in verification of the application if in the event a PTO is ineligible which escaped notice of the respondent in a   particular   year   there   cannot   be   estoppel   on   the Government   to   raise   issue   of   ineligibility   in   the subsequent year. We find substance in the submission of 25 the learned Attorney General. The Government cannot be estopped   to   raise   issue   of   ineligibility   in   case   it escaped its notice in any earlier order. We, thus, do not find any infirmity in the ground taken in the order dated 31.05.2018 in refusing registration due to non­ compliance of Clause (iv). We having upheld the order dated   31.05.2018,   it   is   not   necessary   for   us   to consider   the   rival   submissions   with   regard   to   non­ compliance of Clause (xi).  24. The   submission   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the petitioner   that   report   of   Chartered   Accountant   Firms empanelled   by   the   respondent   has   been   mechanically considered also cannot be accepted. The objections were raised after scrutiny of the application to which reply was   submitted   by   the   petitioner.   In   the   event   the Government   received   the   assistance   from   a   Chartered Accountant   Firm   no   exception   can   be   taken   to   such assistance provided it is proved that there is no non­ application of mind by the Government on the relevant facts and documents. In the present case order dated 31.05.2018   refers   to   the   objections   raised, 26 clarifications/replies submitted by the petitioner. The technical advice received from the empanelled Chartered Accountant  Firms  has also been  relied to support  its conclusion   in   which   no   infirmity   can   be   found.   We, thus, are of the  view that there are  no grounds for interfering   in   the   order   dated   31.05.2018   in   Writ Petition No.638 of 2018 which writ petition deserves to be   dismissed.   The   writ   petition   is   accordingly dismissed.  25. Now   coming   to   the   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   646   of 2018.   Mr.   Santosh   Krishnan,   learned   counsel   for   the petitioner   with   emphasis   and   clarity   submits   that reasons   given   in   the   Order   dated   31.05.2018   for refusing registration is trivial and non­existent.   He submits that copies of Munazzim card and Visa copy were duly submitted and the error pointed out in the name of Mr. Abdur Razzaque as Abdul Razzaque in Munazzim card being insignificant and trivial, ought not to have been relied by the respondent to reject the claim.   It is further submitted that typographical error in passport number as contained in the Munazzim Card was also to be 27 ignored   since   the   copy   of   the   passport   with   correct number was already submitted and it was not the case of the respondent that any other person apart from Abdur Razzaque  was tour Assistant of the petitioner. 26. Ms.   Pinky   Anand,   learned   Additional   Solicitor General   refuting   the   submissions   contended   that   the name as per translation duly attested by the Director of   PTO   showed   the   name   as   Abdul   and   there   was difference   in   passport   number   in   the   Munazzim   Card, which   showed   passport   No.   as   F­83847646   whereas   the correct passport number is F­8384646.  It is submitted that rejection was on valid ground.   27. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.  28. The Munazzim Card and Haj Visa is issued in the name   of   tour   assistant   by   the   Saudi   Authorities. Details   of   tour   assistants   were   already   submitted   at Page No. 199 of the application, which was re­submitted alongwith   clarification   of   the   petitioner.     In   the 28 translated   copy   as   is   the   case   of   the   respondent, attested by the Director of the PTO, the name of Abdur Razzaque   was   shown   as   Abdul   Razzaque.     The   Munazzim Card is issued by the Saudi Authorities and the mention of  word “l” in  place  of “r” at  the  end  of  the  name Abdur is on account of difference in pronounciation of the name by the Saudi Authorities, which does not go to the root of the matter since it is not the case of the respondent that the tour assistant was any other person except  the one  who was  authorised by the  petitioner. Further,   the   photocopy   of   the   passport   of   Abdur Razzaque   Chand   Mia   was   submitted   by   the   petitioner alongwith photograph and other details.  Correct number of   passport   i.e.   F­8384646   is   also   submitted   to   the respondent.  Photocopy of the visa issued by the Saudi Authorities   is   also   brought   on   the   record   alongwith additional   documents   which   mentions   correct   passport number i.e. F­8384646.  In the Munazzim Card issued by authorities,   it   is   also   brought   on   record   before   us that passport number mentioned is F­83847646. The digit “7”   has   been   mentioned   additionally   in   the   passport number, which is an obvious mistake.   We  are of the 29 view that the reliance on aforesaid two grounds which are too trivial and insignificant, cannot be said to be any valid ground for rejection of the claim.  Moreover when   the   same   tour   assistant   with   the   same   passport number   has   conducted   the   Haj   services   for   the   year 2010,   the   respondent's   authorities   while   considering the case of the PTO for registration have to advert to the substance of the matter and substance of the reply submitted by the PTO need to be gone into.  In event of PTO   fulfills   other   conditions,   rejection   of   claim   on trivial   and   non­substantial   grounds   cannot   be countenance.     We   are   of   the   view   that   rejection   of registration   of   the   PTO   for   Haj­2018   in   the   present case cannot be supported and deserves to be set aside. 29. Now, we come to the question of relief, which is to be   granted   to   the   petitioner,   in   view   of   our   above decision that rejection of claim of petitioner for Haj­ 2018 was unfounded.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Jeddah   Travels   and   Jeddah   Hajj   Group   Vs.   Union   of 30 India, (2014) 14 SCC 378,   where this Court laid down following in Paragrpah 7:­ “7. Having considered the contentions advanced on behalf of the rival parties, we are of the view that the petitioners who had approached the Court well in time cannot be denied the benefit   of   an   adjudication   as   urged   by   the learned ASG. The time­frame still available, in our considered view, is adequate to enforce the   rights   of   the   petitioners   if   they   are found so entitled. ” 30.  Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner has filed this  petition on  04.06.2018, which was  the date for allocation of Haj quota to the eligible PTOs, petitioner   is   entitled   for   relief.     Shri   Santosh Krishnan submitted that even if the quota is allotted to all the PTOs, the number of passengers allotted to each   PTO   may   be   reduced   by   one,   which   may   be   re­ allotted   to   petitioner   and   another   eligible   person. This Court in   United Air Travels Services Through its Proprietor A.D.M. Anwar Khan vs. Union of India through Secretary   (Ministry   of   External   Affairs),   (2018)   7 31 SCALE 1: AIR 2018 SC 2264  decided on 07.05.2018 came to consider the question of relief to be granted to PTO, whose   application   for   grant   of   registration   for   Haj Pilgrimage – 2016 was rejected.   In the present writ petition, one of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner is for grant of compensation.   In Prayer C, following has been prayed:­ “(c) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature   of   Mandamus   commanding   and   directing the   respondent   to   pay   compensation   to   the petitioner for the loss occurred to it by not granting registration for Haj 2018;” 31. This Court in   United Air Travel Services (supra) considered the question of grant of relief and has laid down following in Paragraphs 13 to 18:­ “13. The question, however, rises what relief can   be   granted   in   such   a   situation.   The passage   of   time   has   made   certain   reliefs infructuous.   The   time   period   for   conducting Hajj tours for 2016 as well as 2017 is over. Thus, even the alternative relief prayed for 2017 has become infructuous. In three of the writ   petitions,   i.e.,   WP   (C)   Nos.631/2016; 634/2016   &   636/2016,   there   is   a   specific 32 alternative   plea   for   compensation   to   the petitioners for the loss accrued due to non­ grant of registration for the Hajj of 2016. While there is no such specific plea in the other   writ   petitions,   given   the   identical situation, we are of the view that the same principle   ought   to   be   applied   in   all   these cases.   The   petitioners   cannot   be   left remediless.   The   mindless   action   of   the respondents   in   rejecting   the   eligibility   of the petitioners for the year 2016 on the very grounds   on   which   they   were   exempted necessitates   that   the   petitioners   should   be entitled to damages in public law so that they are compensated, at least, to some extent for not having been able to carry on with their business on account of illegal action of the respondents. 14. The principles of damages in public law have   to,   however,   satisfy   certain   tests.   In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC   746 ,   it   was   observed   that   public   law proceedings   serve   a   different   purpose   than private law proceedings. In that context, it was observed as under: “The   purpose   of   public   law   is   not only   to   civilize   public   power   but also to assure the citizen that they 33 live under a legal system which aims to   protect   their   interests   and preserve   their   rights.   Therefore, when the court molds the relief by granting   ‘compensation’   in proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of   the   Constitution   seeking enforcement   or   protection   of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the   wrongdoer   and   fixing   the liability   for   the   public   wrong   on the   State   which   has   failed   in   its public   duty   to   protect   the fundamental   rights   of   the   citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it is   generally   understood   in   a   civil action for damages under the private law   but   in   the   broader   sense   of providing   relief   by   an   order   of making   ‘monetary   amends’   under   the public law for the wrong done due to breach   of   public   duty,   of   not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the   nature   of   ‘exemplary   damages’ awarded   against   the   wrong   doer   for the   breach   of   its   public   law   duty 34 and   is   independent   of   the   rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law   in   an   action   based   on   tort, through a suit instituted in a court of   competent   jurisdiction   or/and prosecute   the   offender   under   the penal law.”  It was also emphasized that it is a sound policy to punish the wrongdoer and it is in that spirit that the courts have molded the relief by granting compensation in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The objective is to ensure that   public   bodies   or   officials   do   not   act unlawfully.   Since   the   issue   is   one   of enforcement of public duties, the remedy would be available under public law notwithstanding that damages are claimed in those proceedings. 15.   The   aforesaid   aspect   was,   once   again, emphasized   in   Common   Cause,   a   Registered Society v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667 . We may also usefully refer to  N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P., (1994) 6 SCC 205  qua the   proposition   that   the   determination   of vicarious liability of the State being linked with the negligence of its officer is nothing 35 new if they can be sued personally for which there is no dearth of authority. 16.   In   the   facts   of   the   present   case,   the arbitrariness and illegality of the action of the authority is writ large. The petitioners have been deprived of their right to secure the quota on a patently wrongful order passed for reasons, which did not apply to them and for   conditions,   which   had   been   specifically exempted.   What   could   be   a   greater arbitrariness and illegality? Where there is such   patent   arbitrariness   and   illegality, there   is   consequent   violation   of   the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution   of   India.   The   facts   of   the present   case   are,   thus,   undoubtedly   giving rise to the satisfaction of parameters as a fit case for grant of compensation. 17.   On   a   conspectus   of   the   aforesaid   facts including the number of pilgrims for whom the petitioners   would   have   been   entitled   to arrange the Hajj pilgrimage, an amount of Rs.5 lakh   per   petitioner   would   be   adequate compensation for the loss suffered by them and sub­serve   the   ends   of   justice.   We   are conscious   of   the   fact   that   there   is   no quantification based on actual loss, but then 36 the award by us is in the nature of damages in public law. 18. The amount for each of the petitioners be remitted by the respondents within two months from the date of this order failing which the amount would carry interest @ 15 per cent per annum apart from any other remedy available to the   petitioners.   It   will   be   open   to   the respondents to recover the amount of damages and   costs   from   the   delinquent   officers responsible   for   passing   such   unsustainable orders.” 32.   We   are   of   the   view   that   petitioner   is   also entitled for same compensation of Rs.5 lakh, which is adequate   compensation   for   the   loss   suffered   by   the petitioner and shall subserve the justice.  We further direct   that   the   aforesaid   amount   be   paid   within   two months from this date, failing which the amount would carry simple  interest @ 15  per cent per annum.   The Writ Petition (C) No. 646 of 20185 is allowed to the above extent.  37 33. Now we come to the last writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 668 of 2018.  Learned counsel for the petitioner   in   support   of   the   above   petition   submits that   although   the   petitioner   has   submitted   necessary details including rental receipts, which is reflected in their reply dated 31.03.2018 but the claim has been rejected with the observation that petitioner has not submitted   that   rental   receipts   and   the   receipts   and vouchers   submitted   by   the   petitioner   were   issued   by Muttawiffy Hujjaj South Asia Establishment, which was not rental receipt with regard to contract entered with Ali   M.A.   Jabullah   and   Zaid   A.A.   Abid   for   hiring   of accommodation for pilgrims.   Petitioner submitted that receipts   having   been   again   submitted   alongwith   the reply dated 31.03.2018, the rejection was uncalled for. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General refuting the submission contends that Muttawiffy Hujjaj South   Asia   Establishment   was   not   the   party   who   had provided   accommodation   to   PTOs.     Since   the accommodation   contract   at   Madina   was   entered   with different persons and further no proper reply has been 38 given   to   the   petitioner   except   again   relying   on   the said receipts.   34. We   have   considered   the   above   submissions   of   the parties   and   have   perused   the   records.     Although   the rejection   of   the   claim   of   the   petitioner   clearly mentions   about   the   above   mismatch   and   stated   that receipt voucher has been issued by entity with whom the contract for accommodation was not entered into, but no proper explanation in the writ petition has been given. The writ  petition only reiterates what was  stated in the   reply   dated   31.03.2018   without   explaining   the objection raised by the respondent.   We are satisfied that   there   was   valid   reason   for   the   respondent   to refuse   registration   to   the   petitioner   when   the objection   was   raised,   which   was   not   satisfactorily replied by the  petitioner.   We are  of the view that petitioner  in this  writ petition is not entitled  for any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed.  35. In result, Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018 ­ Ruby Tour   Services   Pvt.   Ltd.   Vs.   Union   of   India   and   Writ 39 Petition (C) No. 668 of 2018 ­ M/s. Hiba Exports India Vs. Union of India are dismissed. Writ Petition (C) No. 646 of 2018 ­ M/s. Nawab Travels Private Limited Vs. Union   of   India   is   allowed   with   a   direction   to   the respondent  to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakh within a period   of   two   months   from   today,   failing   which   the petitioner shall be entitled to claim simple interest @ 15 per cent per annum.   Parties shall bear their own costs. .............................J. ( A.K. SIKRI ) ...............................J. ( ASHOK BHUSHAN ) NEW DELHI, JULY 30, 2018.