LexSUBHAN TOURS & TRAVEL SERVICES versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.