-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Writ Petition No. 6273 of 2009 All India Haj Umrah Tour Organisers Association. ..Petitioner. Versus The Government of India & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Pankaj Sawant a/w Ms. Trupti Kapadia i/b M/s. Joy Legal Consultants for the Petitioner. Mr. Sandip Marne for the respondent no.4.. Mr. Vinay Masurkar a/w Mr. Y. S. Bhate for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 5. Coram: S. B. Mhase & R. M. Savant, JJ. Date : July 22, 2009. P. C. : 1. Heard. This petition can be conveniently disposed of at the stage of admission since the point involved in this petition is about the opportunity to be offered to the petitioner in case its quota of pilgrims to be sent to the Saudi Arabia on Haj Pilgrimage is reduced by the respondent. Petitioner is an association of the registered private tour operators with the respondent. Last year also the members of the petitioner had sent the pilgrims to Saudi Arabia for Haj. -: 2 :- 2. Since the petitioner is an association of the registered private tour operators, the central government has allotted to the various members of the said association particular quota of pilgrims to be sent to the Haj. Now, the grievance and apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondent is likely to reduce the quota of the members of the petitioner association, with this apprehension the petition has been filed. 3. It would be relevant to note that ultimately the quota is granted by the Government of Saudi Arabia, which is required to be adjusted amongst the various private tour operators and the Haj Committee. Therefore taking into consideration the strength of pilgrims permitted by the Government of Saudi Arabia, the arrangement is required to be made. In what manner the distribution of pilgrims is to be done is a matter to be considered by the Central Government, however, while doing that, since the private tour operators are registered with the Central Government and their business is likely to be affected in case of reduction of the quota of the pilgrims, it is necessary for the Central Government to hear them before any adverse orders are to be passed against them. -: 3 :- 4. Therefore, we find that at this stage the petition can be disposed of by giving directions to the respondent that in case the respondent decides to reduce the quota of the pilgrims to be sent through the petitioner–association, the respondent – government will issue a notice in advance and will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and only thereafter will pass orders, which in our view would be sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice in so far as the Central Government is concerned. 5. Then the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case any adverse order is to be passed, further protection may be given to the petitioner so that the petitioner can approach the appropriate forum or Court for the purpose of challenging the said order and claim a further relief in this respect. 6. The learned counsel for the central government very strenuously opposed for grant of any reliefs. Even in respect of the opportunity, he has serious opposition. However, it is settled law that if any adverse orders are to be passed, then an opportunity of being heard -: 4 :- must be offered to the concerned party moreso in the instant case where the business of the petitioner’s members is likely to be affected. . Therefore, we do not find any substance in the opposition of the learned counsel for the respondent on both these counts. 7. The learned counsel for the Haj Committee submitted that the allotment of the quota has already been made, and therefore the petition be disposed of. Assuming that the statement is correct, the fact remains that such orders are passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner, and therefore, such orders are not sustainable in law in view of the above observations. The Central Government will, therefore, take note of this order and after complying with the principles of natural justice will pass fresh orders in that behalf. Since the orders are not served upon the petitioner – association or its members as on date, we direct that in case such orders are passed by the Central Government without compliance of the principles of natural justice, such orders shall not be implemented till the opportunity of being heard is given to the petitioner. The petition is therefore allowed in the following terms. (i) The Respondents are directed that they should not -: 5 :- modify the quota of the petitioner – association unless it is heard by giving it notice in that respect. (ii) Assuming as stated by the learned advocate for the Haj Committee, that already quota has been fixed, such fixation of quota having been made without following the principles of natural justice, the same shall not be implemented and only after complying with this order further orders would be passed. (iii) In case the orders that would be passed after hearing the petitioner are adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same, and in order to give such opportunity to the petitioner, respondents are further directed not to implement such orders for a period of one week from the date of communication of such orders. (iv) Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)