Ruby Tour Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India

7. Now,   we   proceed   to   notice   the   facts   of   each   writ petition.

12. The   petitioner   has   filed   additional   documents   to support   its   reply   given   on   05.04.2018.   Counter Affidavit has also been filed by the respondent. Writ Petition (C) No. 646 of 2018 – M/s. Nawab Travels Private Limited Vs. Union of India 13

6. As   noted   above,   the   applications   of   petitioners were   rejected   due   to   non­compliance   of   various conditions as enumerated in Annexure A.  Application of petitioner   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   638   of   2018   has been   rejected   for   non­compliance   of   Clause   (iv)   and Clause (xi). Application of petitioner in Writ Petition (C)   No.   646   of   2018   has   been   rejected   for   non­ compliance   of   Clause   (xii),   whereas   application   of petitioner   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   668   of   2018   has been rejected for non­compliance of Clause (xi).  Thus, it is sufficient to notice Clause (iv), Clause (xi) and Clause   (xii)   of   Annexure   A   for   deciding   these   writ petitions, which are to the following effect:­ Clause(iv) Minimum Annual Turnover of INR One Crore or   more   from   Haj   and   Umrah   operations during any of the two preceding financial years along with Balance Sheet and Profit &   Loss   Account­duly   audited   by   the Statutory   Auditors,   Tax   Audit   Report   and Income Tax Return (ITR).

Writ Petition (C) No. 668 of 2018 – M/s. Hiba Exports India Vs. Union of India

24. The   submission   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the petitioner   that   report   of   Chartered   Accountant   Firms empanelled   by   the   respondent   has   been   mechanically considered also cannot be accepted. The objections were raised after scrutiny of the application to which reply was   submitted   by   the   petitioner.   In   the   event   the Government   received   the   assistance   from   a   Chartered Accountant   Firm   no   exception   can   be   taken   to   such assistance provided it is proved that there is no non­ application   of   mind   by   the   Government   on   the   relevant facts   and   documents.   In   the   present   case   order   dated 31.05.2018   refers   to   the   objections   raised, 26 clarifications/replies submitted by the petitioner. The technical advice received from the empanelled Chartered Accountant   Firms   has   also   been   relied   to   support   its conclusion   in   which   no   infirmity   can   be   found.   We, thus,   are   of   the   view   that   there   are   no   grounds   for interfering   in   the   order   dated   31.05.2018   in   Writ Petition No.638 of 2018 which writ petition deserves to be   dismissed.   The   writ   petition   is   accordingly dismissed.

17.   On   a   conspectus   of   the   aforesaid   facts including the number of pilgrims for whom the petitioners   would   have   been   entitled   to arrange the Hajj pilgrimage, an amount of Rs.5 lakh   per   petitioner   would   be   adequate compensation for the loss suffered by them and sub­serve   the   ends   of   justice.   We   are conscious   of   the   fact   that   there   is   no quantification based on actual loss, but then 36 the award by us is in the nature of damages in public law.

18. The amount for each of the petitioners be remitted by the respondents within two months from the date of this order failing which the amount would carry interest @ 15 per cent per annum apart from any other remedy available to the   petitioners.   It   will   be   open   to   the respondents  to   recover   the   amount   of   damages and   costs   from   the   delinquent   officers responsible   for   passing   such   unsustainable orders.”

32.   We   are   of   the   view   that   petitioner   is   also entitled   for   same   compensation   of   Rs.5   lakh,   which   is adequate   compensation   for   the   loss   suffered   by   the petitioner and shall subserve the justice.   We further direct   that   the   aforesaid   amount   be   paid   within   two months   from   this   date,   failing   which   the   amount   would carry   simple   interest   @   15   per   cent   per   annum.     The Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   646   of   20185   is   allowed   to   the above extent.

34. We   have   considered   the   above   submissions   of   the parties   and   have   perused   the   records.     Although   the rejection   of   the   claim   of   the   petitioner   clearly mentions   about   the   above   mismatch   and   stated   that receipt voucher has been issued by entity with whom the contract for accommodation was not entered into, but no proper explanation in the writ petition has been given. The   writ   petition   only   reiterates   what   was   stated   in the   reply   dated   31.03.2018   without   explaining   the objection   raised   by   the   respondent.     We   are   satisfied that   there   was   valid   reason   for   the   respondent   to refuse   registration   to   the   petitioner   when   the objection   was   raised,   which   was   not   satisfactorily replied   by   the   petitioner.     We   are   of   the   view   that petitioner   in   this   writ   petition   is   not   entitled   for any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

35. In result, Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018 ­ Ruby Tour   Services   Pvt.   Ltd.   Vs.   Union   of   India   and   Writ 39 Petition (C) No. 668 of 2018 ­ M/s. Hiba Exports India Vs. Union of India are dismissed. Writ Petition (C) No. 646   of   2018   ­   M/s.   Nawab   Travels   Private   Limited   Vs. Union   of   India   is   allowed   with   a   direction   to   the respondent   to   pay   compensation   of   Rs.5   lakh   within   a period   of   two   months   from   today,   failing   which   the petitioner shall be entitled to claim simple interest @ 15   per   cent   per   annum.     Parties   shall   bear   their   own costs.