Order
1. In our previous order dated 8-5-2012 (2012) 6 SCC 265, we directed the Union of India to file further affidavit stating the way the Government quota of 11,000 seats is being allocated for 2012 Haj.
2. In response to the direction, an affidavit is filed on behalf of the Union of India giving a break-up of the allotment from the government quota of 11,000 seats. From the affidavit, it appears that 300 seats are reserved for Khadim-ul-Hujjaj and 400 seats for mehrams. 1500 additional seats are given to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and 250 additional seats for Lakshadweep UT, that always have more number of applications than the quota allocated to them from the Haj Committee of India (HCOI). Similarly 500 seats are retained for smaller UTs/States that, on account of their smaller population, get a smaller allocation of quota but where the number of applications are slightly in excess of their respective quotas. 2500 seats are also reserved for States/UTs where applications are in excess of their allocated quotas.
3. The aforesaid allocations are unexceptionable and we have no comment to make so far as those allocations are concerned. But from sub-paras (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Para 3 of the affidavit, we find that sizeable number of seats are held back for allocation to individual applicants directly on recommendations of different authorities/dignitaries; 500 seats are reserved for HCOI and 2550 seats “are reserved for recommendations by dignitaries and eminent persons for needy nominees”. It is further stated that 2500 seats that were earlier reserved for the Bohra community are also added up to 2550 seats reserved for the recommendations by the dignitaries and eminent persons as the Bohra community has got its allocation directly from the Saudi authorities. Thus, the seats reserved for recommendations by the dignitaries and eminent persons swells up to 5050.
4. We feel that the number of seats kept aside for allocation to individual applicants on the basis of discretionary recommendations is inordinately large.
5. On hearing Mr G.E Vahanvati, learned Attorney General for the Union of India, and taking into consideration the objections raised by Mr Fakhruddin, learned Senior Advocate appearing for one of the parties in this case, we are of the view that for the present year the number of seats to be allotted on the recommendations of the dignitaries should be limited to the following:
The President of India
100 seats
The Vice-President
75 seats
The Prime Minister
75 seats
Ministry of External Affairs
50 seats
HCOI
200 seats
All the remaining seats must go for distribution among the different State Haj Committees as per the formula of distribution evolved by HCOI.
6. Mr G.E Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, informs us that even though the Haj Policy, 2012 formulated by the Government of India along with all incidental issues, including the registration of the PTOs for carrying Haj pilgrims is engaging the attention of this Court and despite the earlier order passed by the Court on 8-5-2012 (2012) 6 SCC 265, private tour operators are approaching different High Courts with their individual grievances and the High Courts are entertaining the writ petitions in connection with the registration of private tour operators for carrying pilgrims for 2012 Haj. We are surprised to know this.
7. In view of our clear order passed on 8-5-2012 (2012) 6 SCC 265, and further in view of the pendency of this case as a PIL before this Court, any writ petitions ought not to have been entertained by any of the High Courts. If any case, seeking directions for registration as PTO for Haj 2012, is pending in any High Court, all such cases would get transferred to this Court and would be put up along with this case. We make the direction accordingly. We further make it clear that since we are already in seisin of this case, no High Court will entertain any writ petition seeking direction for registration as PTO for Haj 2012.
8. In the previous order dated 8-5-2012 (2012) 6 SCC 265, we had also made it clear that we would like to examine the affairs of the Haj Committee of India and the Haj Committees of the different States and we had directed the Haj Committee of India and the Haj Committees of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala to file their affidavits in the light of the directions given in the previous orders.
9. In pursuance of our direction, affidavits have been filed by the Haj Committee of India and the State Haj Committees of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala. So far as the affairs of the State Haj Committees and the Haj Committee of India are concerned, we would like Mr Huzefa Ahmadi, assisted by Mr Ejaz Maqbool, to assist us as amicus curiae. Let a copy of the complete brief be given to Mr Ahmadi within a week from today.
10. As prayed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Kerala Haj Committee, permission is granted to file additional affidavit. Put up on 27-7-2012.
11. It is made clear that nothing will stand in the way of the Union of India to finalise its programme for Haj 2012 as per the schedule and to give the necessary details to the authorities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as per the schedule in the agreement.
12. Some people running PTOs are making grievances before us that their applications for registration for Haj 2012 were either refused to be accepted or rejected even though they fulfilled all the conditions for registration of PTOs under the Haj Policy, 2012. All such persons having any grievance in this regard may give the necessary particulars to Mr Haris Beeran, learned counsel, who will find out the reasons for rejection/non-acceptance of their applications and apprise the Court in this regard when the case is listed on 27-7-2012 only for this purpose.
Writ Petition (C) No. 283 of 2012
13. The writ petitioners are directed to give the necessary particulars in connection with their applications to Mr Haris Beeran, learned counsel, who will find out the reasons for non-acceptance of their applications and apprise the Court in this regard when the case is next listed on 27-7-2012.
Court Masters