RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1169 · Decided: 30-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1169
RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD.
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018)
JULY 30, 2018
[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
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
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
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
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
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,
  [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1169
              1169
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
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.
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
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
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
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]
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
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 31.05.20

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.