In a matter where travel companies were denied due business in dealing with Haj pilgrims, because of a change in government policy, the Supreme Court bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul on Monday (May 7) awarded compensation for loss of potential business of Rs 5 lakh per petitioner granted. The amount has to be paid within 2 months.
The petition was by United Air Travel Services, through its proprietor A D M Anwar Khan.
These are matters related to Haj policy. The petitioner had prayed for an interim order that the old process must be followed until the matter regarding the new policy is being heard, which Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand, for the government, had opposed. She had said that the new policy is already in the picture and eligible persons can apply accordingly.
The bench stated that it was not possible for them to hear the matter before vacation, to which the counsel for petitioner submitted that the matter will become infructuous for this year if it’s not heard in time. Accordingly the matter was kept on board and only be heard after the part heard matter is over.
There are about 200 aggrieved members in an association of private operators who facilitate pilgrims for their traveling to Umrah, submits counsel for petitioner.
Forget about the petitioners’ submissions, the bench had asked Anand. “Suppose today a private tour operator comes into existence this year, will you allow him under the new policy?”
Anand had said no. She pointed out that a minimum 5-year experience is mandatory. To which the bench asked if that promoted monopoly. Anand had said that such issues have been dealt and decided in earlier matters and such an issue cannot be addressed again every year.
It has been brought to notice by the counsel for petitioner and acknowledged by the bench that this 5 year threshold is the mandate of the Union government and not the Saudi’s.
The counsel for petitioner in the main matter submitted that they have been trying to “do away with my application, saying premature at one instance and infructuous on another. The four deficiencies pointed out in my application weren’t even required in the first place in my case.”
The bench, while finding merit in the matter, stated that the 2016 rejection order was not sustainable as the ground for rejection was not good in law. An order must stand on its own and not be supplemented with anything further. What kind of orders are you writing? Justice Chelameswar had asked Anand.
Thereafter the bench gave the compensation order.
—India Legal Bureau