IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10762 of 2011(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. MUZAFIR HAJJ-UMRAH SERVICE, II FLOOR, A.M.K.BUILDING, OPPOSITE DONBOSCO CHURCH, MANCAUD P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2. ROLEX HAJ UMRA, (ROLEX TRAVEL AND TOURS) FIRST FLOOR, CRYSTAL HOUSE, OPPOSITE NEW BUS STAND, MAVOOR ROAD, CALICUT - 4. 3. AL ABRAR TRAVEL SERVICE, CHANDNI AUDITORIUM BUILDING, KIZHAKKETHALA, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM. 4. AZZIYARA HAJJ AND UMRA SERVICES, V.T.COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, VENGARA P.O., PIN: 676 304. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER (EDAPPALLY). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001. 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY (GULF AND HAJ), MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001. W.P.(C). NO.10762/2011-U: 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (HAJ) MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001. 4. HAJ COMMITTEE OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHAIRMAN, HAJ HOUSE, 7-A, M.R.A.MARG, PALTON ROAD, MUMBAI – 400 001. R1 TO R3 BY SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO.10762 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:- i) To call for the Records relating to Exhibit P1 to P7 and to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents to observe the directions contained in Ext.P7 order while declaring Haj Policy for Haj 2011. ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order directing the Respondents that the Petitioners are also entitled for the extended benefit for preferential consideration granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment dated 21.9.2010 in S.L.P (Special Leave Petition)(c) 27032 OF 2010. iii) To permit the petitioners to apply for registration of quota for Haj 2011 and direct the Respondents to consider the same without insisting on the condition like in Ext.P4 that they should have been registered as Private Tour Operator and allotted quota in Hajj 2009. iv) To extend the benefit of the preferential consideration granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 21.9.2010 in S.L.P(Special Leave Petition)(C) 27032 of 2010 for the Haj 2011 to the petitioners also” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was very much a party to Ext.P6 judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) W.P.(C). NO.10762 OF 2011 2 No.19104 of 2010 and connected cases. Being aggrieved of the verdict therein, the matter was taken up by filing S.L.P before the Supreme Court at the instance of respondents, which culminated in Ext.P7, the operative portion of which reads as follows:- “Therefore, we are upholding the legality and validity of the Policy in principle and we are not interfering with the Haj Policy for 2010. However, while doing so, we direct the Govt. of India to consider the cases of all the respondents Private Tour Operators herein for allocation of Haj Quota for Haj 2011 as stated by the Govt. of India in their policy decision for Haj 2010 and also as stated by Mr.Venugopal and if they are found to be qualified, they shall be given preference for allocation of Haj quota in addition to the already existing ones as agreed to by Mr.Venugopal particularly in view of the fact that these Respondents Private Tour Operators have been trying to get themselves registered for three years i.e for 2008, 2009 and also this year for Haj 2010. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these petitions stand disposed of. While passing this order, we leave the questions of law, which arose for consideration before the Division Bench, open.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only relief prayed for is to extend the benefit of the verdict passed by the Division Bench of this Court, as modified by the Apex Court by Ext.P7, till a proper policy is framed by the Central Government. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that policy is still to be framed. Since the issue has been W.P.(C). NO.10762 OF 2011 3 finalised by the Apex Court as per Ext.P7, this Court finds it necessary to extend the same benefit to the petitioner as well, more so, when the petitioner was a party to Ext.P6 judgment. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to extend similar benefits as made available to the concerned parties by virtue of Ext.P7 order passed by the Apex Court till appropriate policy is formulated by the Central Government. It is also made clear that, this will not stand in the way of the petitioners in obtaining appropriate reliefs for which they are otherwise eligible. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. mns