UNITED AIR TRAVEL SERVICES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR A.D.M. ANWAR KHAN versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY (MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS)

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 698 · Decided: 07-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
UNITED AIR TRAVEL SERVICES THROUGH ITS
PROPRIETOR A.D.M. ANWAR KHAN
v.
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY (MINISTRY OF
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS)
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 631 of 2016 etc.)
  MAY 07, 2018
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Haj: Haj pilgrimage – Grant of registration for –
Disqualification – Private Tour Operators-PTOs conducting travel
business for Hajj and Umrah – Application by the petitioners for
registration and allocation of quota for the Hajj 2016 – Rejection
of, on the ground of non-compliance with certain clauses of the
policy for the PTOs – Thereafter, policy for Private Tour Operators
for hajj 2013-2017’ – Petitioners were all eligible to be qualified
as PTOs for the year 2015 for Hajj pilgrimage – Since qualified
PTOs exceeded 90, draw of lots held but petitioners did not get
quota – Thereafter, since petitioners were not successful in the draw
of lots, they were entitled, under clause 4(b) of the policy, to be
allocated 150 seats in the ensuing year without Qurrah if they
remain qualified as PTOs – Subsequently, in view of certain changes
in the policy, 50 seats to be allocated for 2016 – On 29.4.2016,
publication of norms for registration of PTOs for Hajj 2016 by the
Ministry of External Affairs – Persons like the petitioners who had
qualified for the year 2015 but were not successful in the draw of
lots would have the benefit of exemption – However, rejection letters
intimating non-allocation of quota to private tour operators for
non-compliance of the clauses – Held: Respondent’s plea that the
reasons were wrongly communicated in the rejection letter, is
unsustainable – Thus, the letters of rejection are quashed – With
passage of time certain reliefs have become infructuous – Time
period for conducting Hajj tours for 2016 as well as 2017 is over
– In three writ petitions, petitioners sought compensation as
alternative plea for the loss accrued – Same principle to be applied
in all the cases – In view of the mindless action of the respondents
in rejecting the eligibility of the petitioners for 2016 on the grounds
   [2018] 5 S.C.R. 698
  698
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
699
on which they were exempted, petitioners entitled to damages in
public law – Thus, the petitioners awarded compensation of
Rs.5 lakh per petitioner.
Allowing the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The passage of time has made certain reliefs
infructuous. The time period for conducting Hajj tours for 2016
as well as 2017 is over. Thus, even the alternative relief prayed
for 2017 has become infructuous. In three writ petitions, 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. While there is no such specific plea in the other writ
petitions, given the identical situation, 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 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. [Para 13] [706-G-H; 707-A-C]
1.2 In the facts of the instant case, the arbitrariness and
illegality of the action of the authority is writ large. The petitioners
have 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 the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The facts of the instant case are, thus,
giving rise to the satisfaction of parameters as a fit case for grant
of compensation. [Para 16] [708-D-E]
1.3 On a conspectus of the 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 sub-serve the ends of justice. There is no quantification based
UNITED AIR TRAVEL SERVICES v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
on actual

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