RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

                          [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1169                              1169


                RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD.                                A
                                   v.
                         UNION OF INDIA
                  (Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018)
                            JULY 30, 2018                                   B
          [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
       Haj Pilgrimage – Allocation of visas for Haj pilgrimage to
Private Tour Operators (PTOs) – On facts, applications for
registration by PTOs for Haj Pilgrimage-2018 – However, refusal
                                                                            C
of registration by the Government for Haj Pilgrimage -2018 on the
ground of non-compliance of the various conditions in the Haj
Policy – Rejection of first application for non-submission of minimum
annual turnover certificate of Rs. 1 crore – Document for turnover
of different entity submitted – PTO who applied for registration is a
private limited company and document for turnover relied on was             D
of proprietorship firm – Rejection of second application for non-
submission of legible copies of Munazzim card and Haj visa pages
of the passport of owner/proprietor – Rejection of third application
for non-submission of rental receipts and copy of lease deed duly
signed with the Saudi owners, rental receipt issued by party with
                                                                            E
whom no contract for accommodation of PTOs was entered into –
Writ petition by PTOs seeking issuance of mandamus to the
Government to register petitioner as PTO for Haj Pilgrimage -2018
and allot appropriate quota – Held: As regards the first application,
the petitioner being aware, ought to have submitted all relevant
documents including conversion of proprietorship firm into private          F
limited company with transfer of its assets and liabilities – Since the
turnover of different entity was relied, the decision rejecting the
registration not perverse – Further, the Government cannot be
estopped to raise issue of ineligibility in case it escaped its notice in
any earlier order – Thus, there is no infirmity in the ground taken
                                                                            G
while refusing registration – As regards the second application,
grounds are too trivial and insignificant, and cannot be said to be
any valid ground for rejection of the claim – Rejection of registration
of PTO for Haj Pilgrimage-2018 set aside and petitioner entitled to
compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs – As regards the third application,
                                                                            H
                                  1169
1170            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A     although the rejection of the claim of the petitioner clearly mentions
       about the 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,
       thus, petitioner not entitled to any relief.
 B           Disposing of the Writ Petitions, the Court
              HELD: 1.1 In Writ Petition No.638 of 2018, the petitioner
       was well aware of the objections raised by the respondent under
       Clause (iv) regarding turnover relied by the petitioner being of
       different entity. The position ought to have been explained by
 C     the petitioner by submitting all relevant documents including
       conversion of Proprietorship Firm into Private Limited Company
       with transfer of its assets and liabilities. The fact that turnover of
       different entity was relied, the decision rejecting the registration
       cannot be said to be perverse or based on no material. The
       petitioner laid much emphasis that for the Haj 2017 when the
 D     petitioner was granted registration, it was not open to respondent
       to raise objections again. The submission that there are large
       number of applications every year and there being time constraint
       in verification of the application if in the event a PTO is ineligible
       which escaped notice of the respondent in a particular year there
 E     cannot be estoppel on the Government to raise issue of ineligibility
       in the subsequent year, is accepted. The Government cannot be
       estopped to raise issue of ineligibility in case it escaped its notice
       in any earlier order. There is no infirmity in the ground taken in
       the order dated 31.05.2018 in refusing registration due to non-
       compliance of Clause (iv). [Para 23] [1183-F-H; 1184-A-B]
 F
              1.2 The submission that report of Chartered Accountant
       Firms empanelled by the respondent has been mechanically
       considered 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
 G     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, clarifications/replies submitted by the
 H     petitioner. The technical advice received from the empanelled
   RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                        1171


Chartered Accountant Firms has also been relied to support its           A
conclusion in which no infirmity can be found. Thus, there are no
grounds for interfering in the order in W.P. No.638 of 2018.
[Para 24][1184-C-E]
       2.1 As regards, Writ Petition No.646 of 2018, the Munazzim
Card and Haj Visa is issued in the name of tour assistant by the         B
Saudi Authorities. Details of tour assistants were already
submitted at Page No. 199 of the application, which was re-
submitted alongwith clarification of the petitioner. In the translated
copy as is the case of the respondent, attested by the Director of
the PTO, the name of Abdur Razzaque was shown as Abdul
Razzaque. The Munazzim Card is issued by the Saudi Authorities           C
and the mention of word “l” in place of “r” at the end of the name
Abdur is on account of difference in pronounciation of the name
by the Saudi Authorities, which does not go to the root of the
matter since it is not the case of the respondent that the tour
assistant was any other person except the one who was authorised         D
by the petitioner. Further, the photocopy of the passport of Abdur
Razzaque Chand Mia was submitted by the petitioner alongwith
photograph and other details. Correct number of passport i.e. F-
8384646 is also submitted to the respondent. Photocopy of the
visa issued by the Saudi Authorities is also brought on the record
alongwith additional documents which mentions correct passport           E
number i.e. F-8384646. In the Munazzim Card issued by
authorities, it is also brought on record that passport number
mentioned is F-83847646. The digit “7” has been mentioned
additionally in the passport number, which is an obvious mistake.
The reliance on said two grounds which are too trivial and               F
insignificant, cannot be said to be any valid ground for rejection
of the claim. Moreover when the same tour assistant with the
same passport number has conducted the Haj services for the
year 2010, the respondent’s authorities while considering the
case of the PTO for registration have to advert to the substance
of the matter and substance of the reply submitted by the PTO            G
need to be gone into. In event of PTO fulfills other conditions,
rejection of claim on trivial and non-substantial grounds cannot
be countenanced. The rejection of registration of the PTO for
Haj-2018 in the instant case cannot be supported and deserves
to be set aside. [Para 28] [1185-C-H; 1186-A]                            H
1172            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A            2.2 The petitioner is entitled for same compensation of Rs.5
       lakh, which is adequate compensation for the loss suffered by
       the petitioner and shall subserve the justice. It is further directed
       that the said amount be paid within two months from this date,
       failing which the amount would carry simple interest @ 15 per
       cent per annum. [Para 32] [1189-C]
 B
              3. As regards Writ Petition No.668 of 2018, although the
       rejection of the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition, clearly
       mentions about the 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
 C     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. There was
       valid reason for the respondent to refuse registration to the
       petitioner when the objection was raised, which was not
 D     satisfactorily replied by the petitioner. The petitioner is not
       entitled for any relief. [Para 34][1189-G-H; 1190-A, B]
             Union of India v. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan (2013) 4 SCC
             699 : [2013] 5 SCR 428 ; Jeddah Travels and Jeddah
             Hajj Group v.. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 378 ;
 E           United Air Travels Services Through its Proprietor
             A.D.M. Anwar Khan v. Union of India through
             Secretary (Ministry of External Affairs) (2018) 7
             SCALE 1: AIR 2018 SC 2264 ; Nilabati Behera v. State
             of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 : [1993] 2 SCR 581 ;
             Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India
 F           (1999) 6 SCC 667 : [1999] 3 SCR 1279 ; N. Nagendra
             Rao & Co. v. State of A.P. (1994) 6 SCC 205 : [1994] 3
             Suppl. SCR 144 – referred to.
                               Case Law Reference

 G           [2013] 5 SCR 428          referred to             Para 3
             (2014) 14 SCC 378         referred to             Para 29
             (2018) 7 SCALE 1          referred to             Para 30
             [1993] 2 SCR 581          referred to             Para 31
 H
    RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                              1173


      [1999] 3 SCR 1279                 referred to           Para 31           A
      [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 144           referred to           Para 31
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 638 of 2018.
      Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India                             B
                                    WITH
      Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 646 and 668 of 2018.
      K. K. Venugopal, AG, Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Sanjay Hegde,
Sr. Adv., Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Ms. Taiba Khan, Rajat Bhardwaj,
                                                                                C
Santosh Krishnan, Zulfiker Ali P. S, Faisal M. Aboobacker, Lakshmi
Sree Puthenpurackal, Ainul Ansari, Kripa Shankar Prasad, Harshad V.
Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Ms. Ashly Harshad, Bhuvan Mishra, Hemant
Arya, Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, R. Bala, Ms. Aarti Sharma, Raj Bahadur
Yadav, Sumit Goel, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, R. Balasubramanian, Vinay Kr.
Yadav, Advs. for the appearing parties.                                         D
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These three writ petitions under Article
32 of the Constitution of India have been filed by three Private Tour
Operators (PTOs) challenging the communications dated 31.05.2018
issued by the Ministry of Minority Affairs rejecting their applications         E
submitted for registration of PTOs for Haj 2018. The applications of
petitioners have been rejected for not fulfilling few conditions as
enumerated in Annexure A of PTO Policy for Haj 2018.
       2. The Haj Pilgrimage by Muslims all over the world has been
treated as of utmost religious importance and Muslims all over the world        F
have been going for Haj Pilgrimage to Makkah and Madina for last
several centuries. Until year 2002, the Saudi Arabian Government was
directly allotting visas for Haj to the private tour operators and separately
allotting quota of visas for the Haj pilgrims travelling through the Haj
Committee of India. Thereafter the Saudi Government started allotting           G
one single quota of Haj visas to the Government of India, who in turn
would allot part of the said quota to the PTOs and retained part of the
said quota for itself for allotment through the Haj Committee of India.


                                                                                H
1174             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A             3. The policy for allotment of quota to the private tour operators
       has been issued by the Government of India from time to time. The
       Policy for registration of private tour operators for Haj 2013 came for
       consideration before this Court and this Court after elaborate
       consideration approved the Haj Policy-2013 with certain modifications.
       This Court by its judgment dated 16.04.2013 in Union of India Vs.
 B
       Rafique Shaikh Bhikan, (2013) 4 SCC 699, approved the Haj Policy
       2013, Appendix I of the judgment contained the policy for registration of
       private tour operators – Haj 2013, the terms and conditions for registration
       of Private Tour Operators (PTOs) for Haj 2013 in Annexure-A, in
       Annexure-B other important instructions/guidelines for Haj 2013 and in
 C     Annexure-C application for registration as Private Tour Operators
       (PTOs). The policy was initially directed to remain valid for five years,
       i.e., 2013-2017. The Government of India has extended the said policy
       for the year 2018. The proceeding for formulation of fresh policy for
       the next five years, i.e., 2019 onwards is in process, we, however, in the
       present writ petitions are only concerned with the Haj Policy of 2018.
 D
              4. After 2013 also, there has been various subsequent decisions
       by this Court while considering Haj Policy for subsequent years, which
       shall be noticed by us little later. The Government of India (Ministry of
       Minority Affairs) vide its circular dated 09.12.2017 issued policy for
       Private Tour Operators for Haj 2018. The applications were invited on
 E     or before 05.01.2018. Annexure A to the policy was “Terms and
       Conditions for Registration of Private Tour Operators (PTOs) for Haj-
       2018”. Annexure B contained “Other Important Instructions/Guidelines
       for Haj-2018. Annexue C contained “Application for Registration as
       Private Tour Operator (PTO)” - Haj 2018. All the petitioners in pursuance
 F     of the said circular has submitted their applications for registration for
       Haj-2018. After certain queries, separate communication dated
       31.05.2018 has been issued to petitioners refusing registration of them
       as Private Tour Operators for Haj-2018, which communication has been
       challenged.
 G            5. The prayers made in all the writ petitions being identical, it is
       sufficient to notice the prayers made in the Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of
       2018. which are to the following effect:-
             “(a) Declare that the order dated 31.05.2018 by the respondent
             is illegal and unconstitutional and consequentially, issue Mandamus
 H
    RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                              1175
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      to the respondent to register petitioner as a PTO for Haj 2018 and        A
      allot appropriate quota;
      (b) Alternatively, Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of
      Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent to grant
      registration to the petitioner as PTO for conducting Haj Tour,
      2019;                                                                     B
      (c) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
      commanding and directing the respondent to pay compensation to
      the petitioner for the loss occurred to it by not granting registration
      for Haj 2018;
      (d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may          C
      think fit in the interest of justice and equity.”
       6. As noted above, the applications of petitioners were rejected
due to non-compliance of various conditions as enumerated in Annexure
A. Application of petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018 has
been rejected for non-compliance of Clause (iv) and Clause (xi).                D
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
non-compliance of Clause (xi). Thus, it is sufficient to notice Clause
(iv), Clause (xi) and Clause (xii) of Annexure A for deciding these writ        E
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          F
                Profit & Loss Account-duly audited by the Statutory
                Auditors, Tax Audit Report and Income Tax Return (ITR).
     Clause (xi) Contract for hiring of buildings for pilgrims and “Tasreeh”
                 together with English translations PTO category wise.
                 (Please enclose rental receipts and a copy of lease deed,      G
                 duly signed with the Saudi owners).
     Clause (xii) Copy of Munazzim Card and relevant Haj visa pages of
                  the Passport of the Proprietor/Owner.


                                                                                H
1176             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 7 S.C.R.


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

               Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018 – Ruby Tour Services
               Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India

              8. The petitioner was a qualified Private Tour Operator from 2002
 B     to 2015 and 2017 and was so registered with the Government of India.
       After issue of Haj Policy-2013, the respondent had released the list of
       qualified Private Tour Operators for the Haj-2013, in which name of
       petitioner was included at Sl. No.224 of qualified Private Tour Operators
       under Category I. In the year 2014, 2015, petitioner’s name was included
       in the List of eligible Private Tour Operators. Petitioner conducted services
 C
       for Haj-2015 without any complaint. By press release dated 29.04.2016,
       applications were invited from eligible Private Tour Operators for
       registration of Haj – 2016 in response to which, petitioner applied. The
       respondent vide communication dated 26.07.2016 rejected the application
       of the petitioner for Haj-2016. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition (C)
 D     No. 623 of 2016 against the rejection of its application for Haj-2016, in
       which notice was issued by this Court on 08.08.2016. The respondent
       after the scrutiny of the application and documents submitted by the
       petitioner, found the petitioner eligible to conduct Haj Pilgrimage for 2017
       and accordingly issued certificate of registration and allotted quota of
       105 pilgrims. The Writ Petition (C) No. 623 of 2016 filed by the petitioner
 E
       has been dismissed as infructuous. In pursuance of Circular dated
       09.12.2017 inviting applications, petitioner submitted an application along
       with supporting documents. Fourteen queries were raised by the
       respondent through e-mail dated 25.03.2018 raising different objections.
       Petitioner vide its letter dated 05.04.2018 submitted reply to all the queries
 F     raised.

           9. In query No. 11 regarding turn over details, following was
       communicated:

              “PTO attached Turnover Certificate of 2.16 cr. of ruby tour and
 G            travels and have mentioned that the documents explaining the
              same have been attached on page 50-52 of the Application File
              but there are no such documents on record which explain the
              turnover of 2.16 cr.”


 H
    RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                            1177
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

        10. Petitioner had replied the said query in its reply as follows:-   A
        “The Turnover Certificate of INR 2.16CR is attached herewith
        for your kind perusal. The omission error of Page No. 50-52 is
        highly regrettable.”
        11. With regard to non-compliance of Clause(xi) of Annexure-A,
the Government noticed the reply dated 05.04.2018 but has refused to          B
register citing technical advice from empanelled Chartered Accountant
Firms. It is useful to refer to Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the letter dated
31.05.2018, which contains the consideration by the Government of
India:-
        “2. As per Clause (iv) of Annexure A of PTO Policy, the said          C
        PTO was required to submit the turnover certificate. On scrutiny
        of the documents submitted by the PTO, it has been found that
        PTO is not fulfilling the clause(iv) of Annexure A of PTO Policy
        for Haj 2018. The PTO was requested to clarify the followings:-
            “PTO attached Turnover Certificate of 2.16 cr. of Ruby Tour
            and Travels and have mentioned that the documents explaining      D
            the same have been attached on page 50-52 of the Application
            File but there are no such documents on record which explain
            the turnover of 2.16 cr.”
        3. As per Clause (xi) of Annexure A of PTO Policy, the said PTO
        was required to submit rental receipts and a copy of lease deed,      E
        duly signed with the Saudi owners. On scrutiny of the documents
        submitted by the PTO, it has been found that PTO is not fulfilling
        the clause (xi) of Annexure A. The PTO was requested to clarify
        the followings:-
            “In the invoice copy of Makkah 2 invoice dated 17/08/2015         F
            there is a condition that PTO should send the payment on or
            before 25/07/2015 which is prima facie not possible as that
            date has already passed. Moreover payment made on 19/08/
            2015 but receipt for the same issued on 24/07/2015. Hence
            the authenticity of the Receipt cannot be established.”
                                                                              G
        4. The said PTO in its reply clarified as under:
            “The Turnover Certificate of INR 2.16CR is attached herewith
            for your kind perusal. The omission error of Page No. 50-52
            is highly regrettable.”

                                                                              H
1178            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A               “In the Invoice copy of Makkah 2 Invoice dated 17/08/2015,
                 the supplier has erroneously typed the wrong sending date as
                 25/07/2015 instead of 25/08/2015, and also the receipt issued
                 date as 24/07/2015, instead of 24/08/2015. We regret the
                 oversight by supplier and hereby attach the swift copy along
                 with Invoice and Bank Statement details to authenticate the
 B
                 same. The Tashree agreement dated 17.08.2015 also
                 authenticates the transaction done in August 2015”.
             5. As per the technical advice received from the empanelled
             Chartered Accountant Firms and on scrutiny of the clarification/
             reply of the PTO, it has been observed that the PTO Applicant’s
 C           turnover is less than Rs.1 crore from Haj and Umrah operations
             as required under Clause (iv) of Annexure A of PTO Policy 2018.
             It is further observed that the receipt of accommodation is dated
             prior to the date of Payment (as authenticated from the Bank
             Statement and Foreign exchange Purchase Invoices). Hence the
 D           Receipts lack authenticity. The requirements of Clause (iv) and
             (xi) of Annexure A of PTO Policy 2018 are not complied.”
              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.
 E           Writ Petition (C) No. 646 of 2018 – M/s. Nawab Travels
             Private Limited Vs. Union of India
              13. The petitioner had been found eligible for the years 2002,
       2006-I, 2006-II, 2007 to 2010 and during each period, registration
       certificate was issued to the petitioner and Haj quotas were also allotted.
 F     In response to the circular dated 09.12.2017 inviting applications for
       Private Tour Operators for Haj-2018, petitioner also submitted an
       application. Certain clarifications were sought through online PTO portal.
       Petitioner submitted its clarification on 04.04.2018. By communication
       dated 31.05.2018, the petitioner’s application was refused to register on
 G     the ground of non-fulfillment of Clause (xii) of Annexure A. It is useful
       to extract Paras 2, 3 and 4 of the communication dated 31.05.2018,
       which is to the following effect:-
             “2. As per Clause (xii) of Annexure A of PTO Policy, the said
             PTO was required to submit the copy of Munazzim card and Haj
 H
    RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                          1179
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      visa pages of the passport of the owner/proprietor. On scrutiny       A
      of the documents submitted by the PTO, it has been found that
      PTO is not fulfilling the Clause (xii) of Annexure A. The PTO
      was sent the following observation:-
         “Copies of Munazzim Card and visa copy are not legible.”
      3. The said PTO in its reply clarified as under:                      B

         “It is hereby clarified that the Munazzim Card and Haj Visa is
         issued in the name of Tour Assistant. We have deputed
         Mr. Abdur Razzaque Chand Mia as Tour Assistant for Haj
         2010. We have already submitted a drafted letter providing
         details of Tour Assistant along with the Application for           C
         Registration of PTO for Haj 2018 vide Page No. 199, we are
         again submitting self-attested copy of the same for your kind
         perusal.”
      4. As per the technical advice received from the empanelled
      Chartered Accountant Firms and on scrutiny of the clarification/      D
      reply of the PTO it has been observed that the copies of Munazim
      Card and Haj Visa pages copy provided in the Physical file and
      uploaded on the portal were not completely legible. A difference
      was found in the name and Passport No. as per Munazim Card
      and Visa Copy. Other details were not legible. Copies of Munazzim     E
      Card and Visa Copy are not attached in the clarification. The
      same is required under Clause (xii) of Annexure A of PTO Policy
      2018. Hence, the copy of Munazzim card and Haj Visa pages of
      the passport of the owner/proprietor as required under Clause
      (xii) of Annexure A of PTO Policy for Haj 2018 is not complied.”
                                                                            F
       14. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Petitioner
has also filed additional documents to support his reply.
      Writ Petition (C) No. 668 of 2018 – M/s. Hiba Exports India
      Vs. Union of India
       15. The petitioner – a sole proprietor is carrying on the business   G
of recruitment for deployment of Indian workers with foreign employers,
who is license holder for last 20 years from Government of India. The
petitioner firm also provided Haj services to the pilgrims for the year
2002, 2009, 2010 and 2011. In response to registration of Private Tour
                                                                            H
1180             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A     Operators-Haj 2013, petitioner also submitted its application. After
       response to the explanations called for from the petitioner and submission
       of clarifications by petitioner vide letter dated 30.07.2013, petitioner was
       included in the List issued on 07.01.2014. For the year 2014 and 2015,
       petitioner’s name was not included as a qualified Private Tour Operator.
       Petitioner had also filed Writ Petition (C) No. 413 of 2015, in response to
 B
       registration for Haj 2016, petitioner submitted application and his name
       was included in the list of private tour operators issued on 29.04.2016.
       Although, petitioner was included in the list of Private Tour Operators
       for the draw of lots as per Press Release dated 29.04.2016 but
       unfortunately was not granted quota due to draw of lots. Petitioner was
 C     thus eligible for quota of Haj Pilgrimage for 2017 even without draw of
       lots. In response to application for Haj-2018, petitioner submitted its
       application, objections were raised by communication dated 25.03.2018,
       which were duly replied. The application of the petitioner for registration
       for Haj-2018 has been rejected by communication dated 31.05.2018. In
       Paras 2 and 3 of the communication, following has been stated:-
 D
             “2. As per Clause (xi) of Annexure A of PTO Policy, the said
             PTO was required to submit rental receipts and a copy of lease
             deed, duly signed with the Saudi owners. As per the technical
             advice received from the empanelled Chartered Accountant Firms
             and on scrutiny of the clarification/reply of the PTO the following
 E           has been observed:
                 “The PTO has not submitted Rental receipt of SAR 22500/-
                 for contract No. 705522 entered with Ali M.A. Jabullah
                 (Amjadus Salam) and Rental Receipt of SAR 75000/- for
                 Contract No.213351 entered with Zaid A.A. Abid for hiring of
 F               accommodation for pilgrims, instead submitted with reply of
                 the query Receipt Voucher No.0006 for SAR 200000/- issued
                 by Muttawiffy Hujjaj South Asia Establishment and Receipt
                 Voucher No.49812 which is in Arabic and no translation of the
                 same has been submitted. Hence PTO has not complied with
 G               the requirement of Clause (xi) of Annexure A of PTO Policy”
             4. In view of the deficiencies mentioned in Para 2 above, M/s.
             Hiba Exports India, D 60/4 FIRST FLOOR NEAR GREEN
             PARK, METRO STATION GATE NO.1 YUSUF SARAI, NEW
             DELHI-110016 has not been found eligible for registration and
 H           allocation of quota for Haj 2018.”
    RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                           1181
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      16. We have heard Shri Santosh Krishnan, learned counsel               A
appearing for the petitioner in first two writ petitions. We have also
heard learned counsel appearing in Writ Petition (C) No.668 of 2018.
Shri K.K. Venugopal learned Attorney General and Ms. Pinky Anand,
learned Additional Solicitor General have been heard for the respondent.
       17. Shri Santosh Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner         B
assailing the order dated 31.05.2018 of the respondent in Writ Petition
No.638 of 2018 submits that the two reasons given in the order dated
31.05.2018 have no basis. The petitioner had fully complied with Clause
(iv) of Annexure A since it has filed all relevant documents showing
turnover of Rs.2.16 crore during the financial year 2015-16. He refers
pages 6 to 27 of additional documents filed in the writ petition attacking   C
on the averments made in the counter-affidavit that the PTO did not
submit its own balance-sheet but submitted the balance-sheet of Ruby
Tours & Travels. It is submitted that till Haj 2015, the petitioner herein
was conducting the service as a Proprietorship Firm under the name
Ruby Tours & Travels. However, from Haj 2017 the entity Type was             D
changed to Private Limited Company and this fact having been accepted
by all authorities including the respondent for Haj 2017, the ground was
no longer available to reject the registration by the respondent for Haj
2018. Coming to the second reason that violation of Clause (xi), the
petitioner submitted all documents including the Contract for hiring of
buildings and rent receipts, proof of payment through authorised channel     E
and invoices from the owner, however, due to a typographical error by
the building owner at Saudi Arabia, date of receipt is mentioned as
25.07.2015 instead of 25.08.2015 and date of payment is mentioned as
24.07.2015 instead of 20.08.2015. A Bank statement and soft copy would
show that payment was actually made on 25.08.2015.                           F
      18. Learned counsel further submitted that there has been no
application of mind by the respondent while refusing registration. The
respondent has mechanically followed the advice given by Chartered
Accountant Firms. The rejection was premised on the technical advice
received from the empanelled Chartered Accountant Firms which itself         G
shows non-application of mind by the respondent.
      19. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General, refuting the
above submissions contends that order rejecting registration has been
issued considering the objections raised, clarifications/replies submitted
and documents submitted by the petitioner. He submitted that the
                                                                             H
1182            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A     documents for turnover submitted by the petitioner were the documents
       of Proprietorship Firm that is Ruby Tours & Travels whereas registration
       was applied for Haj by the Private Limited Company and no documents
       have been submitted that Proprietorship Firm has been converted into
       Private Limited Company. The petitioner which is a Private Limited
       Company cannot rely on turnover of Proprietorship Firm. It is submitted
 B
       that decision was arrived after application of mind and the rejection
       having been based on valid reason this Court shall not substitute its own
       decision with that of department. On submission pertaining to second
       ground, it is contended that PTO’s application that there was a
       typographical error, cannot be submitted since typographical error was
 C     not only in one document but in the various documents submitted by the
       PTO which fact itself raises question of credibility of the PTO.
              20. We have gone through the rival submissions and perused the
       records of Writ Petition No.638 of 2018.
              21. For turnover the petitioner has placed reliance on certificate
 D     of Chartered Accountants dated 02.01.2018 as Annexure P-18. The
       certificate reads:
                      “To whomsoever it may concern
                  This is to certify that the Ruby Tours & Travels (Prop.
             Nazir Ahmed Shaikh) having its office at 7/8, Ground Floor,
 E           2421 East Street Galleria, East Street Camp, Pune-411001
             had doing the business of Haj Tours.
                 This is also to certify that Ruby Tours & Travels is having
             Haj turnover of Rs.2.16 Crore during the financial year 2015-
             16.
 F              This is on the basis of information, explanations & records
             produced before me.
             For A S Gholkar & Co.
             Chartered Accountants
 G           Amit S. Gholkar
             (Proprietor)
             Place: Pune
             Date: 02/01/2018
 H           Certificate No.ASG/2017-18/068.”
    RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                                1183
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       22. The petitioner has applied quota as Private Limited Company            A
which fact is not disputed. Objection was raised by query dated
25.03.2018 that all documents were submitted for Private Limited
Company but previous quota including 2015 were allotted to proprietor.
The Type of entity is changed. After considering the reply ultimately
order dated 31.05.2018 stated that PTO’s turnover is less than Rs.1
                                                                                  B
crore as required under Clause (iv). In the counter-affidavit as well as in
the oral submissions, the aforesaid ground was relied on behalf of the
respondents for rejection. The petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit to
the counter-affidavit in which petitioner submits that till Haj 2015 petitioner
was conducting service as a Proprietorship Firm under the name Ruby
Tours & Travels, however, from Haj 2017 the entity Type was changed               C
to Private Limited Company. The PTO who has applied for registration
is admittedly a Private Limited Company and the turnover which is relied
was of a Proprietorship Firm. It is not the case that the Company having
incorporated after the Proprietor business was closed. It is not a case of
conversion of Proprietorship Firm into Company. No documents have
                                                                                  D
been submitted that Proprietorship Firm sold its entire business to the
Company. It is also relevant to point out that when the petitioner had
applied for registration for Haj 2016, the objection was raised by letter
dated 07.06.2016 of the respondent where following was stated:
       “2(vi). In the application form the PTO has mentioned it is a
       proprietorship firm but as per documents provided it is a                  E
       private limited company. Further, the names of all directors
       are also not disclosed.”
       23. Thus, the petitioner was well aware of the objections raised
by the respondent under Clause (iv) regarding turnover relied by the
petitioner being of different entity. The position ought to have been             F
explained by the petitioner by submitting all relevant documents including
conversion of Proprietorship Firm into Private Limited Company with
transfer of its assets and liabilities. The fact that turnover of different
entity was relied, the decision rejecting the registration cannot be said to
be perverse or based on no material. Learned counsel for the petitioner           G
laid much emphasis that for the Haj 2017 when the petitioner was granted
registration, it was not open to respondent to raise objections again.
Learned Attorney General submitted that there are large number of
applications every year and there being time constraint in verification of
the application if in the event a PTO is ineligible which escaped notice of
                                                                                  H
1184             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A     the respondent in a particular year there cannot be estoppel on the
       Government to raise issue of ineligibility in the subsequent year. We find
       substance in the submission of the learned Attorney General. The
       Government cannot be estopped to raise issue of ineligibility in case it
       escaped its notice in any earlier order. We, thus, do not find any infirmity
       in the ground taken in the order dated 31.05.2018 in refusing registration
 B
       due to non-compliance of Clause (iv). We having upheld the order dated
       31.05.2018, it is not necessary for us to consider the rival submissions
       with regard to non-compliance of Clause (xi).
              24. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
       report of Chartered Accountant Firms empanelled by the respondent
 C     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-
 D     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, 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
 E     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.
              25. Now coming to the Writ Petition (C) No. 646 of 2018.
       Mr. Santosh Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner with emphasis
 F     and clarity submits that reasons given in the Order dated 31.05.2018 for
       refusing registration is trivial and non-existent. He submits that copies
       of Munazzim card and Visa copy were duly submitted and the error
       pointed out in the name of Mr. Abdur Razzaque as Abdul Razzaque in
       Munazzim card being insignificant and trivial, ought not to have been
 G     relied by the respondent to reject the claim. It is further submitted that
       typographical error in passport number as contained in the Munazzim
       Card was also to be ignored since the copy of the passport with correct
       number was already submitted and it was not the case of the respondent
       that any other person apart from Abdur Razzaque was tour Assistant of
       the petitioner.
 H
    RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                            1185
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       26. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General refuting     A
the submissions contended that the name as per translation duly attested
by the Director of PTO showed the name as Abdul and there was
difference in passport number in the Munazzim Card, which showed
passport No. as F-83847646 whereas the correct passport number is
F-8384646. It is submitted that rejection was on valid ground.
                                                                              B
       27. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the records.
       28. The Munazzim Card and Haj Visa is issued in the name of
tour assistant by the Saudi Authorities. Details of tour assistants were
already submitted at Page No. 199 of the application, which was re-           C
submitted alongwith clarification of the petitioner. In the translated copy
as is the case of the respondent, attested by the Director of the PTO,
the name of Abdur Razzaque was shown as Abdul Razzaque. The
Munazzim Card is issued by the Saudi Authorities and the mention of
word “l” in place of “r” at the end of the name Abdur is on account of
difference in pronounciation of the name by the Saudi Authorities, which      D
does not go to the root of the matter since it is not the case of the
respondent that the tour assistant was any other person except the one
who was authorised by the petitioner. Further, the photocopy of the
passport of Abdur Razzaque Chand Mia was submitted by the petitioner
alongwith photograph and other details. Correct number of passport i.e.       E
F-8384646 is also submitted to the respondent. Photocopy of the visa
issued by the Saudi Authorities is also brought on the record alongwith
additional documents which mentions correct passport number i.e.
F-8384646. In the Munazzim Card issued by authorities, it is also brought
on record before us that passport number mentioned is F-83847646.
The digit “7” has been mentioned additionally in the passport number,         F
which is an obvious mistake. We are of the view that the reliance on
aforesaid two grounds which are too trivial and insignificant, cannot be
said to be any valid ground for rejection of the claim. Moreover when
the same tour assistant with the same passport number has conducted
the Haj services for the year 2010, the respondent’s authorities while        G
considering the case of the PTO for registration have to advert to the
substance of the matter and substance of the reply submitted by the
PTO need to be gone into. In event of PTO fulfills other conditions,
rejection of claim on trivial and non-substantial grounds cannot be
countenance. We are of the view that rejection of registration of the
                                                                              H
1186            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A     PTO for Haj-2018 in the present case cannot be supported and deserves
       to be set aside.
              29. Now, we come to the question of relief, which is to be granted
       to the petitioner, in view of our above decision that rejection of claim of
       petitioner for Haj-2018 was unfounded. Learned counsel for the petitioner
 B     has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Jeddah Travels
       and Jeddah Hajj Group Vs. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 378,
       where this Court laid down following in Paragrpah 7:-
             “7. Having considered the contentions advanced on behalf of the
             rival parties, we are of the view that the petitioners who had
 C           approached the Court well in time cannot be denied the benefit of
             an adjudication as urged by the learned ASG. The time-frame still
             available, in our considered view, is adequate to enforce the rights
             of the petitioners if they are found so entitled. “
              30. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner has filed this
 D     petition on 04.06.2018, which was the date for allocation of Haj quota to
       the eligible PTOs, petitioner is entitled for relief. Shri Santosh Krishnan
       submitted that even if the quota is allotted to all the PTOs, the number of
       passengers allotted to each PTO may be reduced by one, which may be
       re-allotted to petitioner and another eligible person. This Court in United
       Air Travels Services Through its Proprietor A.D.M. Anwar Khan
 E     vs. Union of India through Secretary (Ministry of External Affairs),
       (2018) 7 SCALE 1: AIR 2018 SC 2264 decided on 07.05.2018 came
       to consider the question of relief to be granted to PTO, whose application
       for grant of registration for Haj Pilgrimage – 2016 was rejected. In the
       present writ petition, one of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner is for
 F     grant of compensation. In Prayer C, following has been prayed:-
             “(c) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
             commanding and directing the respondent to pay compensation to
             the petitioner for the loss occurred to it by not granting registration
             for Haj 2018;”
 G            31. This Court in United Air Travel Services (supra) considered
       the question of grant of relief and has laid down following in Paragraphs
       13 to 18:-
             “13. The question, however, rises what relief can be granted in
             such a situation. The passage of time has made certain reliefs
 H
RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                           1187
            [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

 infructuous. The time period for conducting Hajj tours for 2016 as      A
 well as 2017 is over. Thus, even the alternative relief prayed for
 2017 has become infructuous. In three of the writ petitions, i.e.,
 WP (C) Nos.631/2016; 634/2016 & 636/2016, there is a specific
 alternative plea for compensation to the petitioners for the loss
 accrued due to non-grant of registration for the Hajj of 2016.
                                                                         B
 While there is no such specific plea in the other writ petitions,
 given the identical situation, we are of the view that the same
 principle ought to be applied in all these cases. The petitioners
 cannot be left remediless. The mindless action of the respondents
 in rejecting the eligibility of the petitioners for the year 2016 on
 the very grounds on which they were exempted necessitates that          C
 the petitioners should be entitled to damages in public law so that
 they are compensated, at least, to some extent for not having
 been able to carry on with their business on account of illegal
 action of the respondents.
 14. The principles of damages in public law have to, however,           D
 satisfy certain tests. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993)
 2 SCC 746, it was observed that public law proceedings serve a
 different purpose than private law proceedings. In that context, it
 was observed as under:
    “The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power      E
    but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system
    which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights.
    Therefore, when the court molds the relief by granting
    ‘compensation’ in proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the
    Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental
    rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the     F
    wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the
    State which has failed in its public duty to protect the
    fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation
    in such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally
    understood in a civil action for damages under the private law       G
    but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making
    ‘monetary amends’ under the public law for the wrong done
    due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental
    rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of
    ‘exemplary damages’ awarded against the wrong doer for the
                                                                         H
1188      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A        breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights
          available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under
          the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted
          in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender
          under the penal law.”
 B        It was also emphasized that it is a sound policy to punish the
       wrongdoer and it is in that spirit that the courts have molded the
       relief by granting compensation in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
       The objective is to ensure that public bodies or officials do not act
       unlawfully. Since the issue is one of enforcement of public duties,
       the remedy would be available under public law notwithstanding
 C     that damages are claimed in those proceedings.
       15. The aforesaid aspect was, once again, emphasized in Common
       Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC
       667. We may also usefully refer to N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v.
       State of A.P., (1994) 6 SCC 205 qua the proposition that the
 D     determination of vicarious liability of the State being linked with
       the negligence of its officer is nothing new if they can be sued
       personally for which there is no dearth of authority.
       16. In the facts of the present case, the arbitrariness and illegality
       of the action of the authority is writ large. The petitioners have
 E     been deprived of their right to secure the quota on a patently
       wrongful order passed for reasons, which did not apply to them
       and for conditions, which had been specifically exempted. What
       could be a greater arbitrariness and illegality? Where there is such
       patent arbitrariness and illegality, there is consequent violation of
 F     the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of
       India. The facts of the present case are, thus, undoubtedly giving
       rise to the satisfaction of parameters as a fit case for grant of
       compensation.
       17. On a conspectus of the aforesaid facts including the number
 G     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 sub-serve the ends of justice. We are conscious of the fact
       that there is no quantification based on actual loss, but then the
       award by us is in the nature of damages in public law.
 H
    RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA                           1189
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      18. The amount for each of the petitioners be remitted by the          A
      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
                                                                             B
      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          C
cent per annum. The Writ Petition (C) No. 646 of 20185 is allowed to
the above extent.
      33. Now we come to the last writ petition being Writ Petition (C)
No. 668 of 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the
above petition submits that although the petitioner has submitted            D
necessary details including rental receipts, which is reflected in their
reply dated 31.03.2018 but the claim has been rejected with the
observation that petitioner has not submitted that rental receipts and the
receipts and vouchers submitted by the petitioner were issued by
Muttawiffy Hujjaj South Asia Establishment, which was not rental receipt     E
with regard to contract entered with Ali M.A. Jabullah and Zaid A.A.
Abid for hiring of accommodation for pilgrims. Petitioner submitted that
receipts having been again submitted alongwith the reply dated
31.03.2018, the rejection was uncalled for. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned
Additional Solicitor General refuting the submission contends that
Muttawiffy Hujjaj South Asia Establishment was not the party who had         F
provided accommodation to PTOs. Since the accommodation contract
at Madina was entered with different persons and further no proper
reply has been given to the petitioner except again relying on the said
receipts.
       34. We have considered the above submissions of the parties and       G
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     H
1190                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A     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.
 B
              35. In result, Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018 - Ruby Tour Services
       Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Writ 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
 C     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.


 D     Nidhi Jain                                            Writ Petitions disposed of.




 E




 F




 G




 H