IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20284 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. ALIYAR, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O LATE KUNJAMU, VELIYATH HOUSE,HMT COLONY, KALAMASSERY. 2. PATHUMMA, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O ALIYAR,VELIYATH HOUSE, HMT COLONY, KALAMASSERY. 3. MOITHU AGED 54 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED, NJKKADA HOUSE, MATTAKAD, HMT COLONY, KALAMASSERY. 4. AYSHA, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O MOITHU NJKKADA HOUSE, MATTAKKAD, HMT COLONY, KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.VEERAVUNNY SRI.P.B.SUNEER SRI.K.S.ARUN BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE HAJ COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE HAJ COMMITTEE, PUTHIYARA P.O., KOZHIKODE -4. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.20307 OF 2008 ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos.20284 & 20307 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners in these two writ petitions are aspirants for Haj Pilgrimage. They were included in the waiting list last year. The petitioners’ contention is that until the last year, the persons in the waiting list were given preference for the coming year which is denied to the petitioners. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that first of all the selection is not made by the 1st respondent but made by the All India Haj Committee in Mumbai. Secondly, he would submit that it is not practically feasible to follow the procedure of giving preference to persons in the waiting list during this year because the number of persons in the waiting list is over 13,000 and the number allotted to Kerala this year is only 7,209. In so far as the petitioners have no allegation of malafides against the respondents, I do not think that I should exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in the matter especially when the W.P.(c)No.20284/08 & con.case 2 selection is made by lots by the All India Haj Committee from among the list forwarded by the 1st respondent. In fact I have already dismissed two other similar writ petitions. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd