mst 1 WP.7121.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7121 OF 2010 Samina Baig and another Petitioners versus Union of India and others Respondents Ms.Varsha Palav for petitioners. Mr.Madhav Jamdar a/w Lata Patne for respondents 1 to 3. Mr.Chandra Naik for respondent nos.4 and 6. Mr.Burhan V. Bukhari for respondent no.4. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : 18th October 2010 P. C. : 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners who are the partners of M/s.Al Taiyaba Tours and Travels have prayed to quash and set aside letters dated 19th July 2010 and 16th August 2010 issued by respondent nos.4 and 1 respectively with a further prayer to accept the application form submitted by the partnership firm M/s.Al Taiyaba Tours and Travels for registration and allotment of quota for Haj-2010 and to allot the quota of pilgrims in favour of said partnership firm. 2. M/s.Al Taiyaba Tours and Travels is a partnership firm mst 2 WP.7121.10 carrying on business of arranging Haj tours as well as other tours. One Sami Ulla Baig (deceased) and petitioner no.1 herein were the partners of said partnership firm. Clause-15 of the Partnership Deed provided as to what should happen in case of death of any of the partners of the partnership firm. Upon death of Sami Ulla Baig, the father of petitioner no.1 and respondent nos.6 to 8 and husband of respondent no.5, disputes arose amongst the heirs. Till 2008, M/s.Al Taiyaba Tours and Travels partnership firm was allotted the quota of Haj pilgrims by the Ministry of External Affairs (Haj Cell). In 2009 similar quota was allotted for Al Taiyaba Tours and Travels. As two firms in the name of Al Taiyaba Tours and Travels claimed quota for Haj pilgrims (one firm of present petitioners and other firm of respondent nos.5 to 8), the Central Government informed the petitioners by letter dated 18th September 2009 (Exhibit-K) that the certificate of registration could not be issued to M/s.Al Taiyaba Tours and Travels for two reasons; One of them being that the proprietorship of the company was not clear as the Government had received applications from two companies having the same name and address. 3. The petitioners have filed Suit No.3720 of 2009 in the Court of Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore claiming that the petitioners are entitled to carry on the business of the partnership firm M/s.Al Taiyaba Tours and Travels. The petitioners also filed an application for interim injunction to restrain respondent nos.5 to 8 from inter meddling with the affairs and business of the said partnership firm M/s.Al Taiyaba Tours and Travels. By order dated 3rd October 2009 the City Civil Court at Bangalore dismissed the mst 3 WP.7121.10 application for temporary injunction with an observation that ultimately it is the duty of the Haj Committee of the Ministry of External Affairs to consider the rights of the parties on the basis of reconstituted partnership deed and to pass an order as to who is entitled to the licence to run the business and that pending adjudication of the matter by the Central Government, the Court cannot hold that the petitioners are the right persons to run the business in the name of M/s.Al Taiyaba Tours and Travels. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners went in appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. The said appeal came to be disposed of with an observation that any observations made by the Trial Court touching upon the merits of the case would not have any bearing insofar as the disposal of the case later on merits is concerned. 5. It is in the background of the above facts that the petitioners have filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decisions of the Central Government as conveyed through letters dated 19th July 2010 and 16th August 2010. 6. The learned counsel for the Central Government has invited our attention to the fact that the last date for receipt of private tour operator's application for 2010-Haj was 21st June 2010 and, therefore, the Central Government had informed the petitioners on 16th August 2010 that the petitioners' application could not be considered. The learned counsel has also invited our attention to the order dated 21st September 2010 of the Apex Court in SLP mst 4 WP.7121.10 (Civil) No.27032 of 2010. 7. The learned counsel for respondent nos.5 to 8 has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners have no right to carry on the business of the partnership firm without permitting the respondent nos.5 to 8 (the widow and three other daughters of the deceased) to join the business and that it is respondent nos.5 to 8 who are entitled to carry on the business. He further states that apart from the suit filed by the present petitioners against respondent nos.5 to 8 in the City Civil Court at Bangalore, there are three other suits filed by respondent nos.5 to 8 in the City Civil Court at Bangalore for partition of the properties left by the deceased and for other reliefs. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that on account of pendency of different suits between the petitioners on one hand and respondent nos.5 to 8 on the other hand, the dispute about entitlement of M/s.Al Taiyaba Tours and Travels to get allotment of Haj pilgrims is not likely to be resolved for quite some time as the other disputes between the parties will take considerable time to resolve. 9. In view of the above and also taking into consideration the fact that the last date for receiving applications of private tour operators for Haj pilgrims for 2010 season was 21st June 2010 and the Haj Pilgrimage has also started from 2nd week of October 2010, no direction can be given to the authorities to consider the application of the petitioners for Haj-2010 season. However, we are of the view that interests of justice will be served if this petition mst 5 WP.7121.10 is disposed of with an observation that the petitioners as well as respondent nos.5 to 8 may endeavour to resolve their disputes expeditiously through Bangalore Mediation Centre of Karnataka High Court keeping aside other disputes between the parties in the suits pending before the City Civil Court at Bangalore. 10. We accordingly dispose of this petition with a direction that the petitioners on one hand and respondent nos.5 to 8 on the other may approach Bangalore Mediation Centre of Karnataka High Court for resolving their disputes about the right to carry on the business in the name of M/s.Al Taiyaba Tours and Travels partnership firm and particularly for the purposes of getting quota for the Haj pilgrims from the Central Government. In order to facilitate the parties and to avoid issuance of notice by Bangalore Mediation Centre, we direct that the petitioners and respondent nos.5 to 8 shall appear before the Bangalore Mediation Centre of Karnataka High Court on 15th November 2010 at 10.30 a.m.. 11. A copy of this order shall be sent by the Co-ordinator of the Mediation Centre of Bombay High Court to the Bangalore Mediation Centre of Karnataka High Court within one week from today. 12. We make it clear that disposal of this petition or pendency of disputes between the parties before the City Civil Court at Bangalore or before the Bangalore Mediation Centre of Karnataka High Court will not preclude the parties from independently applying for licence as a private tour operator before the Central Government or before any other authority for 2011 Haj season mst 6 WP.7121.10 and that the authorities will also be at liberty to consider such application in accordance with law. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)