SUBHAN TOURS & TRAVEL SERVICES versus UNION OF INDIA
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 768, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 768 
SUBHAN TOURS & TRAVEL SERVICES 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(Writ Petition No. 239 of2016 etc.) 
MAYl8,2016. 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) 
Haj - Writ petition u/Art. 32 of Constitution - By Private Tour 
Operators (PTO) - Seeking direction to the authorities c;oncerned 
C 
to consider their application for registration as PTO for conducting 
Haj tours for the year 2016-17 - Held: Liberty granted to each 
writ petitioner to make a fresh application on or before 27.5.2016 
as prescribed for grant of permission to take the pilgrims for haj 
for the year 2016 to the prescribed authority -Authority concerned 
directed to examine, consider and decit:/e each such application on 
D 
its merit strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order 
- Writ petitions disposed of - Constitution of India - Art.32. 
Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajique Shaikh Bhikan & 
Ors. 2013 (5) SCR 428 = 2013 (4) SCC 699; Jeddah 
Travels & Jeddah Hajj Group vs. Union of India 2014 
E 
(14) SCC 378 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2013 (5) SCR 428 
referred to 
2014 (14) sec 378 
referred to 
Para9 
Para\I 
F 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 239 
G 
of2016. 
Under Artcile 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
WITH 
W. P. NOS. 844 & 845 OF 2015 
W. P. NOS. 70, 71, 72, 166, 211, 246, 263, 279, 280,318, 319,320, 
325,344,286,317,64,362,363,364,310,360,328,369,368,2620F 
2016. 
,. 
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Goel, Marsook Bafaki, Sayid Marzook 
H
Bafaki, Zulfiker Ali P. S., Faisal M. Aboo Baiker, Harshad V. Hameed, 
768
SUBHAN TOURS & TRAVEL SERVICES v. UNION OF INDIA 
769 
Dileep Poolakkot, Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Z. U. Khan, Syed lmtiyaz Ali, 
A 
R. D. Upadhyay, K. Raghavacharyulu, Kailash Pandey, Ranjeet Singh, 
Arindam Dey, K. V. Sreekumar, Z. U. Khan, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, 
Mohd. Ainu) Ansari, Manoj Kumar Goyal for the Petitioner. 
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, ASG, Bhuban Mishra, Ritin Rai, Ms. Sweta 
Garg, Siddhartha Jha, Ms. Sadhvi Mohindru, B. Krishna Prasad for the 
B 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. This decision shall dispose 
of all the writ petitions because as stated by the learned counsel 
appearing for the parties, all these writ petitions essentially involve 
C 
common issues. 
2. These writ petitions are filed by the writ petitioners under Article 
32 of the Constitution oflndia for claiming following reliefs. 
"(a) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus 
commanding and directing the respondents to accept application 
for registration and issue Registration Certificate as PTO under 
Category II for conducting Haj Tour, 2016; 
(b )Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus 
commanding and directing the respondents to consider the right 
of first registration to the Petitioner for conducting Haj Tour, 
2016-2017; 
(c) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may 
think fit in the interest of justice and equity." 
3. The writ petitioners are private tour operators (PTOs) who 
are
sending pilgrims for Hajj. According to them, they are duly registered 
and qualified tour operators who have so far undertaken several tours 
for Hajj successfully in the past and there is nothing against any of 
them, which may debar them from undertaking tlte similar tour this 
year also which is essentially a tour for the benefit of pilgrims go fog for 
Hajj. 
4. It appears from the reading of the writ petitions that these writ 
petitioners have a grievance based on some kind of apprehension that 
their applications, if made or those which are pending with the authorities 
for grant of permission to undertake Hajj Yatra for the current year 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
770 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R . 
.. 
2016, are likely to be rejected or would be rejected thereby making 
their apprehension a reality and grievance infructuous. It is essentially 
with this kind of apprehension asserted in the writ petitions, these 
writ petitions are filed for grant of aforementioned reliefs. 
5. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General 
appearing for the respondent-Union of India at the very outset fairly 
made a statement that so far no decision has been taken on any of 
the applications made by these PTOs (writ petitioners) by the 
authorities. Learned counsel also stated that let each writ petitioner 
make a fresh application for grant of permission with necessary details 
and documents as prescribed latest by 27.05.2016 to the concerned 
authorities and each such application once made would be examined, 
considered and decided in accordance with law on its individual merits 
by the authorities concerned and reasoned order would be passed on 
each such application latest by 29.06.2016 under intimation to each 
applicant. 
6. Though learned counsel for the writ petitioners and learned 
Additional Solicitor General argued the matter with reference to previous 
orders passed by this Court on the issues sought to be raised, we are 
not inclined to go into any of these questions because as mentioned 
above, it is not necessary to go into it at all in the light of the statement 
made by the learned
Additional Solicitor General. We, therefore, express 
no opinion on any of the issues. 
7. Learned counsel appearing in three writ petitions namely 
Writ Petition Nos. 262, 263 and 364 of2016, however, made attempt to 
urge that the cases of these three writ petitions involve some different 
point. We have heard the learned counsel and find that at this stage 
it is not necessary to go into the merits of writ petitions. 
8. ln the light of aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the 
statement made by the Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the 
respondent-Union of India, we dispose of these writ petitions finally 
G 
by granting I iberty to each writ petitioner to make a fresh application 
with all the necessary details with the documents as prescribed for 
grant of permission to take the pilgrims for Hajj for the year 2016 on . 
or before 27.05.2016 to the prescribed authority. 
H 
9. On such application(s) being made, the concerned authority 
would examine, consider and decide each such application on its merit
SUBHAN TOURS & TRAVEL SERVICES v. UNION OF 
INDIA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
· strictly in accordance with law and keeping in view the law laid down in 
the decisions of this Court in Union oflndia & Ors. vs. Rafique Shaikh 
Bhikan & Ors., 2013 (4) SCC 699, Order dated 07.0~.2014 passed in 
Special Leave Petition (c) No. 20743/2014 entitled Union of India & 
Ors. vs. All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizers Association & Ors., 
Order dated 07.08.2014 passed in Writ Petition (civil) No. 480/2014 
etc.etc. entitled Jeddah Travels & Jeddah Hajj Group vs. Union of 
India, Order dated 12.05.2015 passed in I.A. No. 33 of2015 in Special 
Leave Petition (c) No. 28609/2011 entitled Union oflndia vs. Rafique 
Sheikh Bhikan and others and Order dated 23.07.2015 in W.P.(civil) 
No. 344/2015 entitled Alban Hajj Umrah Service vs. Union oflndia. 
10. Let the applications be decided by the concerned authority by 
passing a reasoned order on each application on or before 29.06.2016 
and the order so passed be communicated to each applicant (writ 
petitioner) immediately. 
11. The writ petitions are disposed of. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Petitions disposed of. 
771 
A 
B 
c 
D