UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusRAFIQUE SHAIKH BHIKAN & ANR.

                     [2012] 5 S.C.R. 715


                   UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                            A
                               v.
            RAFIQUE SHAIKH BHIKAN & ANR.
     (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28609 of 2011)

                         MAY 8, 2012
                                                                    B
 [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]

    Hajj Policy:

       Registration of Private Tour Operators (PTOs) for ferrying   c
Hajj Pilgrims - Eligibility conditions - Reasonableness of
restrictions imposed for registration as PTO - Held: Object.of
registering PTOs is not to distribute the Hajj seats to PTOs
for making business profits but to ensure that the pilgrim may
be able to perform his religious duty without undergoing any        0
difficulty, harassment or suffering - Restriction would not be
unreasonable merely because in a given case it operates
harshly - Therefore, no objection can be taken to high
standards and stringent conditions being set up for registration
as PTOs and the court's interference would be called for only       E
if it is shown that any of the conditions was purely subjective
or designed to exclude any individual or group of private
operators/travel agents i.e. bordering on malice.

     Registration of Private Tour Operators - Conditions laid
down in the 2012 Hajj Policy - Restriction of minimum               F
requirement of 250 sq. ft. office area (carpet) - Held: There is
no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the requirement of
minimum office area - This condition ensures that only
genuine operators approach for Hajj Quota i.e. those who
have a proper and well maintained office and those who are          G
genuinely interested in taking the pilgrims to Saudi Arabia -
The condition is further meant to scrutinize the PTOs who sell
their Quota to other PTOs.

                              715                                   H
    716       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A      Registration of Private Tour Operators - Restriction of
  minimum annual turnover of Rs. 1crore and refundable
  security deposit of Rs.25 lakhs - Held: Each PTO is to be
  given quota of at least' 50 pilgrims as per the bilateral
  agreement between Government of India and Kingdom of
B Saudi Arabia - Admittecfly, the turnover on the basis of a
  quota of 50 Hajj pilgrims alone would not be less than Rs. 75
  lakhs - this would mean that if a private operator/travel agent
  is asking for a readymade business package worth Rs. 75
  lakhs in turnover, he should have at least a turnover of Rs. 1
c crore from his own business - Thus, the turnover fixed in the
  Policy is a modest figure1 - Similarly security deposit of Rs.25
  lakhs is reasonable - PTOs should be financially sound to
  face the unforeseen situation arising during Hajj - This
  condition would be nece1ssary to keep PTOs under check so
  that they provide the promised facilities to the pilgrims.
0
       Registration of Private Tour Operators - Condition of
  disqualification in cas13 of court case against the private
  operator - Held: Court case that might render a private
  operator/travel agent ineligible for registration means a case
E instituted against the private operator/travel agent as an
  accused or in regard to some liability against him.

        Hajj subsidy - Central Government directed to
    progressively reduce the amount of subsidy so as to
F   completely eliminate it within a period of 10 years as subsidy
    money can be more profitably used for upliftment of the
    community in education and other indices of social
    development. .

       Goodwill Delegation - Nomination qf members of
G Delegation - Held: Was in complete violation of Article 14 of
  the Constitution - No purpose can be served by sending large,
  unwieldy, amorphous and randomly selected delegation -
  Practice of sending D19legation must come to stop.

H         Reservation of 1·1,000 seats for different categories by
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAFIQUE SHAIKH                 717
                BHIKAN & ANR.
 Government of India - Union of India directed to file affidavit   A
 stating in greater detail the way the quota of 11, 000 seats is
 being allocated for 2012 Hajj, the procedure followed by Hajj
·Committee of India and State Hajj Committee in making
 selection for sending pilgrims for Hajj
                                                                   B
     Prem Printing Press v. Bihar State Text Book Publishing
Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2001 (4) PLJR 311; Ranjit Kumar
Ghosh v. State of Bihar and Others 2004 (3) BLJR 2242; Tata
Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651: 1994 (2) Suppl.
SCR 122; Union of India and another v. International Trading       C
Co. and another (2003) 5 SCC 437: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR
55 - relied on
                      Case Law Reference:
     2001 (4) PLJR 311               relied on       Para 11
                                                                   D
     2004 (3) BLJR 2242              relied on       Para 12
     1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 122         relied on       Para 13
     2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 55          relied on       Para 14
                                                                   E
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
28609 of 2011.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 05.10.201 ~ of the High
Court of Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No. 1945 of 2011.
                                                                   F
                             WITH

SLP (C) No. 33190-33217 of2011.

T.P. (C) Nos. 191, 192, 196, 197, 198 & 199 of 2012.
                                                                   G
     G.E. Vahanvati, AG, L. Nageshwar Rao, Fakhruddin, V.
Giri, P.S. Narasimha, K.V. Viswanathan, Colin Gonsalves,
Harris Beem, Nishanth Patil, Mushtaq Salim, B.V. Bairam Das,
Gaurav Agrawal, Shankar Narayanan, Abdul Karim Ansari,
                                                                   H
    718      SUPREME COUR:T REPORTS                    [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A Surya Kamal Mishra, Harshad V. Hameed, Mohammed
  Saddique, Neeraj Shekhar, Sridhar Potaraju, Gaichangpou
  Ganmei, D. Sri Rao, Zulfier Ali, P. George Giri, Pooja Sharma,
  Niolfar Qureshi, Khushi Moho, Vijendra Kumar, Shaikh Chand
  Saheb, Biju P. Raman, Usha Nandani, Nikhil Goel, Marsook
B Bafaki, Naveen Goel, Shakeel Ahmed, Sadiya Shakeel, Ajay
  Veer Singh Jain, Atul Agarwal, Anish Jain, Nitin Jain, Divya
  Garg, Mohd. lrshad Hanif, Anand Mishra, Amarendra K. Singh,
  Dr. Vipin Gupta, B.V. 013epak, A.K. Singh, Toshika Katare,
  Rana Parveen Siddiqui, Sudarshan Rajan, Mohd. Qamar Ali,
C S. Ritam Khare, A. Karim Ansari, Pradhuman Gohil, Vikash
  Singh, Satish Aggarwal, Praveen Agrawal, Shakil Ahmed Syed,
  C.N. Sreekumar, E.M.S. Anam, P. Narasimhan, Jayasree
  Narasimhan, Samina-ln-Person for the appearing parties.

          Thei order of the Court was delivered by
D
          AFTAB ALAM, J.

    SLP (CIVIL) N0.28609/2011

E         1. This special leave petition has been filed by the Union
  of India against an order passed by Bombay High Court on
  October 5, 2011 in a batch of writ petitions challenging the
  Government of India 2011 Haj Policy that required a private
  operator/travel agent to have "minimum office area of 250 sq.
F ft." as one of the eligibility conditions for registration for ferrying
  pilgrims for Han. Jhe Hi!~h Court rejected the challenge but gave
  directions to the Government of India to allocate certain seats
  to some of the writ pe!titioners from the eight hundred seats
  from the Central Government quota that had not been allocated
  to anyone till the time of passing of the order by the court.
G Aggrieved by the directions given by the High Court, the Union
  of India filed this special leave petition and by order dated
  October 14, 2011 this Court stayed the operation of the
  directions given by the High Court. In any event, by the time the

H
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAFIQUE SHAIKH                     719
         BHIKAN & ANR. [AFTAB ALAM, J.)
matter came before this Court, the directions could not be acted        A
upon as there was very little time left for the commencement of
Hajj for that year.

    2. By a subsequent order dated February 17, 2012 this
Court declared its intent to examine the Haj policy of the              B
Government in all its aspects and not to limit the matter to the
issue of Private Tour Operators (PTOs).

      3. As directed by the Court, the Government of India has
filed its affidavit enclosing, among other documents, its Haj
Policy for the year 2012 (2012 Haj Policy). A number of                 C
intervention petitions are filed in which many issues are raised;
IAs are also filed in very large numbers on behalf of private
operators/ travel agents (either individually or through
associations) in which objections are raised against one or the
other condition for eligibility for registration as PTOs for ferrying   D
Hajj pilgrims.

     4. By this interim order, we propose to deal with some of
the issues arising from the 2012 Haj Policy on a priority basis
leaving others to be dealt with in due course.                          E

THE PTOs

     5. The dispute between private operators/travel agents
and the Government of India for registration as PTO for carrying
Hajj Pilgrims is of a recent origin but is tending to become an         F
annual feature. It is, therefore, necessary to address the issue
and to conclusively resolve it.

     6. In order to clearly understand the context in which the
dispute arises a few facts are required to be taken into account.       G
Under a bilateral agreement signed between the Government
of India and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia every year, the latter
Government assigns a fixed number of pilgrims that are
permitted to visit Saudi Arabia for performing Hajj. Out of the
overall number, a relatively small portion is specified for the
PTOs and the rest for the Haj Committee of India. Before 2002,          H
    720      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A    the PTOs were allocated Hajj seats directly by the Kingdom of
     Saudi Arabia and there was, therefore, no involvement of the
     Government of India in the allocation of any Hajj quota to the
     PTOs. After Hajj 2001, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia made it
     mandatory for the PTOs to come through their respective
B    GovernmEmts. From 2002, therefore, the Government of India
     was obliged to evolve a system under which private operators/
     travel agemts would be registered as PTOs and following the
     registration would be allocated quotas from the overall number
     of pilgrims specified for PTOs. It is, thus, to be seen that a
c    private operator/travel agent needs first to get registered as
     PTO and it would then get a fixed number of pilgrims for
     carrying for Hajj. For registration of a private operator/travel
     agent as PTO, the Government of India frames policy laying
     down conditions subject to which registration would be given.
     It further frames a poi'icy for allocation of quotas to the
0
     registered PTOs from the overall number of pilgrims assigned
    to PTOs in the bilateral agreement with the Kingdom of Saudi
    Arabia. As noted above, this arrangement began from 2002
    when the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia made it mandatory for the
E   PTO to come through their respective Governments. Initially,
    there were not many private operators/travel agents coming
    forward to claim any share in the seats allocated in the bilateral
    agreements for the PTOs but around the year 2006 more and
    more private operators/travel agents started claiming allocation
    from the Hajj seats reserved for PTOs. It appears that it took
F   three or four years for the people in this line of business to
    realize that this was thi:i opening up of a new highly lucrative
    commercial venture. It is, thus, to be seen that though for the
    past four or five years the number of pilgrims reserved for PTOs
    in the bilateral agreement has slightly gone down, there has
G   been a large increase in the number of registered PTOs and
    an even larger increase in the number of applications for
    registration as PTOs. This would be evident from the following
    chart:-·

H
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAFIQUE SHAIKH                       721
         BHIKAN & ANR. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

   SI. No.      Haj Year     Number of PTOs         Total seats for       A
                                                     PTOs

   1             2005            239                     35,960

   2             20061           277                     45,455           B

   3             200611          293                     46,930

   4             2007            297                     47,000

   5             2008            298                     47,080
                                                                          c

   6             2009            615(*)                  47,405

   7             2010            602(**)                 45,637
                                                                          D
   8             2011             567(***)               45,441

   9             2012             -                      45,000

       (*comprising 297 old PTOs and 315 new ones)
                                                                          E
    (** 13 PTOs were disqualified in 2010 because of adverse
reports on them)

       (*** excluding Duplication of one PTO).

      7. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the Union of India that   F
for Hajj 2011, 1322 applications were received from private
operators/travel agents, out of which, only 567 were found
eligible and the 45,491 seats were distributed to them as per
the PTO policy for Haj 2011. Some of the private operators/
travel agents who failed to get registration approached the               G
Bombay High Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in which the
High Court passed the order from which this special leave
petition arises.
       8. From these facts, it is not difficult to deduce that the
                                                                          H
    722        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A  dispute between the private operators/travel agents and the
   Government of India in regard to registration as PTOs arises
   from a conflict of object and purpose. For most of the private
   operators/travel agents n:gistration as PTOs is mainly a
   question of more profitable business. Under the bilateral
B agreement no PTO can be given a quota of less than fifty
   pilgrims. Normally, a quota of fifty pilgrims would mean, on an
   average and by conservative standards, a profit of rupees thirty
   five to fifty lakhs. This in turn means that any private operator/
   travel agent, successful in getting registered as a PTO with the
c  Government of India would easily earn rupees thirty five to fifty
   lakhs in one and a half to two months and m_ay then relax
  comfortably for the rest of the year without any great deal of
  business from any other source. For the Government of India,
  on the other hand the registration of the PTOs, is for the
  purpose to ensure a comfortable, smooth and trouble-free
0
  journey, stay and performance of Hajj by the pilgrims going
  through the PTOs.
        9.The pilgrim is actually the person behind all this
  arrangement. For many of the pilgrims Hajj is once in a life time
E pilgrimage and they undertake the pilgrimage by taking out the
  savings made over a lifo time, in many cases especially for this
  purpose. Hajj consists of a number of parts and each one of
  them has to be performed in a rigid, tight and time-bound
  schedule. In case due to any mismanagement in the
F arrangements regarding the journey to Saudi Arabia or stay or
  traveling inside Saudi Arabia any of the parts is not performed
  or performed improperly then the pilgrim loses not only his life
  savings but more importantly he loses the Hajj. It is not unknown
  that on landing in Saudi Arabia a pilgrim finds himself
G abandoned and completely stranded.
          ·10. It is, thus, clear that in making selection for registration
  of PTOs the primary object and purpose of the exercise cannot
  be lost sight of. The object of registering PTOs is not to
  distribute the Hajj seats to them for making business profits but
H to ensure that the pilgrim may be able to perform his religious
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAFIQUE SHAIKH                 723
         BHIKAN & ANR. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
duty without undergoing any difficulty, harassment or suffering.   A
A reasonable profit to the PTO is only incidental to the main
object.
     11. In Prem Printing Press v. Bihar State Text Book
Publishing Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2001 (4) PLJR 311 relating
to the grant of contract for printing of text books by the Bihar   8
State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd., coming up before
Patna High Court one of us (Aftab Alam J.) considered question
of the importance of the work and its objective in granting
contracts by statutory bodies and made the following
observations:                                                      C
    "3. During the past three decades a substantial amount of
    case law has accumulated on the question of award of
    government contracts and a lawyer with sufficient skills may
    without difficulty press into service certain observations
    from the earlier decisions in any dispute relating to the D
    award of government contracts. But while hearing teamed
    arguments from the counsel appearing for the parties I
    was unable to keep out of my mind for a moment the fact
    that the contract in dispute was for printing of school text
    books for the academic year 2001 and though two out of E
    the three parts of the year is already over, the school
    children are yet to receive the books intended for them.
    While lengthy arguments were advanced on the plea of
    upholding the rights-of the individual and much reliance
    was placed on a number of Supreme Court decisions, I F
    was unable to relinquish the thought that the contract for
    printing of school text books for a particular academic
    year was basically different from and could not be viewed
    in the same way as a contract for ten years for extraction
    of resin from forests (Kasturi Lal; (1980) 4 sec 1) or the G
    contract for the supply of fresh milk for the Military Farms
    (Harminder Singh Arora; (1986) 3 SCC 247) or the
    contract for allotment of damaged stocks of rice (Food
    Corporation of India; A.LR. 1993 SC 1601) or the grant of
    licence for the operation of 'Cellular Mobile Telephone H
    724       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A         Service' (Tata Cellular: A.LR:. 1996 SC 11) or the contract
          for publication of telephone directories of Mahanagar
          Telephone Nigam Limited (Sterling Computers Ltd; A.LR.
          1996 SC 51) or the contract for development and
          exploration of oil fields (Centre for Public Interest Litigation;
B         A.LR. 2001 SC 80).
          4. To my mind, upholding of individual rights and the
          enforcement of the individual's rights by the intervention
          of the writ court is undoubtedly important but in doing so
          the court must not over look the damage that might be
C         caused to a larger public cause, as in this case. Speaking
          for myself I would not have entertained this writ petition and
          thrown it out at the very threshold, indeed leaving it open
          for the Petitioner to claim damages by bringing an action
          against the Corporation before a Civil Court. Such a
D         course would not have rendered the Petitioner remediless
          and at the same time it would also have saved this Court
          from finding itself in a position where it may be seen as
          causing obstruction in the expeditious and timely supply
          of text books to school children."
E                                                    (emphasis added)
         12. In another case Ranjit Kumar Ghosh v. State of Bihar
    and Others [2004 (3) BLJR 2242] dealing with the purchase
    of indelible ink by the Election Commission for proper conduct
F   of election Aftab Alam J. (once! again as a judge of Patna High
    Court) made the following observations:-
                 "15. What was observed in the case of printing of
          text-books applies with greater force to this case.
          Democracy is basic to and inseparable from our
G         constitutional scheme. The survival of democracy depends
          upon proper conduct of elections and the importance of
          indelible ink is quite obvious for the proper conduct of
          elections. The purchase of indelible ink therefore cannot
          be taken in the same way as the purchase of other
H         common materials such as office furniture, stationary ar'
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAFIQUE SHAIKH                  725
    BHIKAN & ANR. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
other articles of ordinary use by the Election Commission.      A
Putting the purchqse of indelible ink at par with the other
regular purchases would throw the field open to private
players and one predictable out-come of it would be that
the purchase of indelible ink would inevitably get embroiled
in Court cases. On each occasion one or the other of the        B
unsuccessful tenders would drag the dispute with regard
to the grant of the supply order to Court. This would be at
a time when elections are very near and all the resources
and attention of the Election Commission should be
focussed on holding the elections properly. At that stage       c
a notice from the Court to meet the objections of the
unsuccessful tenders in the matter of purchase of ink would
naturally have a debilitating effect on the Commission and
it may also be reflected in the conduct of elections by it.
Such a situation, the Court would like to avoid at all costs.
                                                                0
       16. What is discussed above are important
considerations in the matter of purchase of indelible ink
for holding elections. Nevertheless, this Court should have
put aside these considerations, howsoever, weighty, had
it been satisfied that the present arrangement for the          E
purchase of the ink was tainted with arbitrariness or
unreasonableness or it had the slightest tinge of mala fide
but on an over all examination of the matter the Court feels
satisfied that the arrangement does not suffer from any of
those vices. The arrangement was evolved by the Election        F
Commission, with the aid of Government controlled
agencies when the constitutional republic of India was only
twelve years old and when no private trader might have
come forward to help the commission in its work on his
expenses. The Commission has stuck to the arrangement           G
that was evolved forty years ago. The arrangement does
not confer any material benefits upon anyone and it does
not lead to the profiteering by any individual person,
inasmuch as, M/s. Mysore Paints and Varnishes Ltd. is a
Government concern. In these circumstances, the
                                                                H
    726       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A         purchase of indelible ink. by the Commission from the
          Governrrent owned company cannot be described as
          distribution of any largess by the State."
         13. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651,
    a three Judge Bench of this Court in paragraph 70 of the
B   judgment made the following observations:-
                "lt cannot be denied that the principles of judicial
          review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers
          by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or
          favouritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there
c         are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial
          review. Government is the guardian of the finances of the
          State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the
          State. The right to refus1:i the lowest or any other tender is
          always available to the Government. But, the principles laid
D         down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in
          view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be
          no question of infringement of Article 14 if the
          Government tries to get the best person or the best
          quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to
E         be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is
          exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that
          power will be struck down. "
                                                   (emphasis added)
F         14. In a more recent decision in Union of India and another
     v. International Trading Co. and another (2003) 5 SCC 437,
     relating to the renewal of the permit granted under the
    provisions of the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing
    by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981, while reversing the decision of
G   the High Court, this Court, in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the
    judgment, held and obser.1ed as follows:-
                 "22. If the State acts within the bounds of
          reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into
          consideration the national priorities and adopt trade
H         policies. As noted above, the ultimate test is whether on
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAFIQUE SHAIKH                 727
         BHIKAN & ANR. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
     the touchstone of reasonableness the policy decision          A
     comes out unscathed.
           23. Reasonableness of restriction is to be
    determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint
    of interests of the general public and not from the
    standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the           8
    restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract
    consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be
    unreasonable merely because in a given case, it
    operates harshly. In determining whether there is any
    unfairness involved; the nature of the right alleged to        C
    have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the
    restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil
    sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the
    imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time,
    enter into judicial verdict. The reasonableness of the         D
    legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect
    to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in
    question. Canalisation of a particular business in favour of
    even a specified individual is reasonable where the
    interests of the country are concerned or where the            E
    business affects the economy of the country. (See
    Parbhani Transport Coop. Society Ltd. v. Regional
    Transport Authority, AIR 1960 SC 801, Shree Meenakshi
    Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1974) 1 SCC 468, Hari Chand
    Sarda v. Mizo District Council, AIR 1967 SC 829 and            F
    Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kera/a, (1997) 9 SCC
    495."
                                            (emphasis added)
     15. Seen in the light of the aforesaid decisions, no
objection can be taken to high standards and stringent             G
conditions being set up for registration as PTOs and the court's
interference would be called for only if it is shown that any
condition(s) was purely subjective or designed to exclude any
individual or group of private operators/travel agents, i.e.,
bordering on malice.                                               H
    728       SUPREME COURT HEPORTS                 [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A        16. After this rather long preface, we now proceed to
    examine the conditions laid down for registration of PTOs in
    the 2012 Haj Policy.
       17. First of all a young lady appearing-in-person, stated
  before us that she worked as a private operator/travel agent
B and she was aggrieved by clause 4 of the press release for
  registration of Private Tour Operators - Hajj 2012, that put a
  restriction over more than one member of a family getting
  registration as PTO. Clause 4 of the press release reads as
  under:-
c         "4. In case more than one member of a family applies
          which includes wife and dependent children, only one
          member of such family will be eligible for registration for
          Hajj-2012.. "

D
        18. The lady submitted that though her husband was also
  in the same business but she worked as private operator/travel
  agent separately and independently from her husband. She
  further submitted that simply because her husband was also in
  the same business, there was no reason to deny her registration
E as PTO.
       19. In response to the lady's apprehension, the learned
  Attorney General in his most amiable manner assured the lady
  and the Court that in case more than one member of a family
  satisfied the eligibility condiltions and one of them was a
F woman, she would be given preference for registration to the
  exclusion of others and if there was no woman, preference
  would be given to the member of the family who was oldest in
  the business.
        20. In regard to clause 4, another objection was raised that
G it does not define "family" comprehensively and the Court was
  asked to give direction for a comprehensive definition of the
  term "family". There is no substance in the objection and we
  find that there is sufficient clarity as to what means "family". In
  case anyone makes a complaint that in .the process of
H registration he/she was eliminated arbitrarily and in a mala fide
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAFIQUE SHAIKH                  729
         BHIKAN & ANR. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
way by abusing the restrictive provision of clause 4, that          A
complaint may be examined on its own merits.
Minimum requirement of 250 sq. ft. office area (carpet)
     21. A number of individuals and groups joined in the
objection against the condition that requires a minimum office      B
area (carpet) of 250 sq. ft. and submitted that the condition was
arbitrary and was aimed at excluding the smaller operators. It
was submitted that the requirement of having such a large area
for office was quite harsh especially for a place like Mumbai.
      22. This condition must also be viewed keeping the            C
interest of the pilgrim as paramount. Learned Attorney General
submitted that according to the Saudi Regulations, a PTO must
be allotted a minimum of 50 pilgrims. He further pointed out that
Hajj is a pilgrimage on foreign soil and it comprises a number
of rituals. Since a majority of the pilgrims would be going for     D
Hajj for the first time, the PTO needs to extensively brief the
pilgrims about the rituals and the procedure to be followed
during Hajj. Separate classes for briefing the pilgrims need to
be conducted by the PTO. Individual agreements are required
to be made with the pilgrims by the PTO for which the pilgrims      E
need to visit the office of the PTO. All logistics including
ticketing, accommodation, visa processing etc. has to be made
by the PTO for which they need the presence of pilgrims.
Further, this condition is laid down to make sure that only
genuine operators approach the Ministry for Hajj quota, i.e.
                                                                    F
those who have a proper and well maintained office and who
are genuinely interested in taking the pilgrims to Saudi Arabia.
The condition was further meant to scrutinize the PTOs who sell
their quota to other PTOs. The Attorney General stated that
during the 2010 Hajj, the Ministry got complaints from various      G
quartP.rs regarding black marketing of seats by some of the
PTOs. It was informed that some of the PTOs after getting
registration and allocation of seats instead of carrying the
pilgrims themselves sold the seats to other PTOs. The Ministry
decided to take action against such unscrupulous PTOs but it
found that many of them had no offices at all. The addresses        H
    730     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A   furnished by them were fake and they were all fly by night
    operators. A genuine PTO should be having an office with a
    reasonable area. The condition is provided to protect the
    interests of the pilgrims.
         23. On a consideration of submissions made on behalf the
B   parties, we see no arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the
    requirement of a minimum officei area (carpet) of 250 sq. feet.
    Annual turnover of Rs.1 crorie.
        24. Many objections were raised against the requirement
C to furnish documents showing minimum annual turnover of Rs.1
  crore for the years 2009-2010 or 2010-2011.
        25. Mr. N. Rao, senior advocate appearing for a group of
  private operators/ travel agents, in course of his submissions,
  admitted that the turnover on the basis of a quota of 50 Hall
D pilgrims alone would not be less than Rs.75 lakhs. This means
  that if a private operator/travel a~1ent is asking for a readymade
  business package worth Rs. 75 la1khs in turn over he/she should
  at least show a turn over of rupees one crore from his own
  business. Seen, thus, the turn over fixed in the Government
E policy appears to be a modest 'figure.
    Security deposit of Rs.25 lakhs
        26. What is stated above in regard to the annual turnover
    would equally apply in respect of the refundable security deposit
F   of Rs.25 Lakhs.
        27. In addition, the learned Attorney General pointed out
  that in case any unforeseen situation arises during Hajj, the
  PTO should be financially sound enough to face it. The Attorney
  General further informed the Court that it was often seen in the
G past that PTOs left the pilgrims in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
  and what is worse left them unattended even while hospitalised
  in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There were instances when
  pilgrims who met with an accident during their stay in Kingdom
  of Saudi Arabia were not given any medical aid or any kind of
H help or assistance. In many cases the PTOs did not provide
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAFIQUE SHAIKH                    731
        BHIKAN & ANR. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
even the promised facilities and this condition was, therefore,       A
n~cessary to keep them under a check.

     28. We see no unreasonableness in the condition.
Court cases
     29. The learned Attorney General clarified that a court          B
case against a private operator/travel agent that would
disqualify him/her for registration did not mean a case instituted
by him/her for enforcement of any constitutional or legal rights.
The court case that might render a private operat0r/travel agent
ineligible for registration means a case instituted against the       C
private operator/travel agent as an accused or in regard to
some liability against him.
On-line applications
      30. It may be recorded here that the learned Attorney           o
General accepted one of the suggestions made by Mr. P.S.
Narasimha, learned senior counsel appearing for a group of
private operators/ travel agents, that applications may be made
on-line, subject to the condition that the on-line application must
be complete in all respects.                                          E
     31. On hearing all sides on the conditions for registration,
we are satisfied that none of the conditions can be said to be
arbitrary or unreasonable and the conditions prescribed in the
Government of India 2012 Haj Policy do not warrant any
interference by this Court. The 2012 Haj Policy for registration      F
of PTO as contained in Annexure P5 to the affidavit filed on
behalf of the Union of India is, accordingly, approved for the
2012 Hajj.
     32. The grant of approval to Annexure P5, however, is not
to say that there is no scope for improvement in the policy of        G
registration for PTOs. We feel that there is a serious omission
in the policy in that it does not require the applicants for
registration to disclose the kind of arrangements they proposed
to offer to the pilgrims and the charges they would levy from
the pilgrims. We realize that at the stage of applying for            H .
    732       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A   registration the applicant may give only a basic idea of the
    standard of arrangements and an approximate quotation of
    charges but even that would provide some check against fixing
    inflated and arbitrary prices on seats once registration is
    granted.
B      33. We would further like to point out that there is another
  way of looking at the process of registration. The Government
  of India has presently adopted an open ended approach under
  which any private operator/travel agent who satisfies the
  conditions in the Haj Policy is found eligible and granted
C registration. Now, it is undemiable that the number of PTOs
  cannot exceed 900, because in that case the number of seats
  allotted to each of them would go below 50, which is
  impermissible under the bilateral agreement. In other words,
  there is an inbuilt ceiling on the number of PTOs. If that be so,
D why cannot the ceiling be put on a more manageable number
  such as 600 to 700 and selection be made from the applicants
  on a competitive basis applying a uniform criteria.
    THE HAJJ SUBSIDY
E       34. As regards the Hajj subsidy, from the figures for the
  past 19 years given in the affidavit filed by the Union of India, it
  appears that the amount of subsidy has been increasing every
  year. This is on account of increase both in the number of
  pilgrims and the travel cost/air fare. In the year 1994, the number
F of pilgrims going for Hajj from India was as low as 21035; in
  2011, the number of pilgrims increased to 125000. In the year
  1994, the cost of travel per pilgrim was only Rs.17000.00; in
  the year 20·11, it went up to l~s.54800.00. As a result, the total
  Hajj subsidy that was Rs.10.51 crores in the year 1994 swelled
G up to Rs.685 crores in the year 2011.
          35. The Union of India has justified the grant of subsidy
    stating, in paragraph 21 of the affidavit, as follows:
          "The Ministry of Civil Aviation floats a tender to s~lect an
          airline to get a competitive fare to ferry the Haj pilgrims.
H         For the year 2010. the fare per pilgrim was Rs.47,675/-
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAFIQUE SHAIKH                     733
         BHIKAN & ANR. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
     and in 2011 was Rs.54,800/-. The higher fares charged               A
     by the Airlines during the Haj period vis-a-vis other times
     of the year is due to regulations imposed by the Saudi
     Arabian Authorities during the Haj period. The norm is
     that the Airline should carry pilgrims to Jeddah and return
     with zero load and vice versa. This forces the Airlines to          B
     increase the fares, which otherwise come to around
     Rs.25,000/. Therefore, the Government thought it fit to
     collect a reasonable fare from the pilgrim and the
     additional fare charged because of the Haj specific
     logistics is paid by the Government to the airline. The             C
     Government also decided not to pass on and burden the
     additional amount charged by the airline, purely on
     logistics, to the pilgrims. During the Haj of 2011, each
     pilgrim was charged Rs.16,000/- towards airfare and the
     additional amount of Rs.38,0001- per Haji is what is
     termed "subsidy". It is submitted that the subsidy is given         D
     only to those pilgrims who go through the Haj Committee
     of India."
     36. It is further stated in paragraph 24 that the grant of Hali
subsidy by the Government of India was challenged before this            E
Court in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No.1 of 2007 (Prafu/I v. Union
of India). This Court by a reasoned judgment and order dated
January 28, 2011, dismissed the writ petition upholding the
constitutional validity of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 and the           F
grant of subsidy by the Government of India in the air fare of
the pilgrims.
     37. From the statement made in paragraph 21 of the
affidavit, as quoted above, it is clear that the Government of
India has no control on the cost of travel for Hajj. The air fare to     G
Jeddah for traveling for Hajj is increased by airlines to more
than double as a result of the regulations imposed by the Saudi
Arabian Authorities. It is illustratively stated in the affidavit that
in the year 2011, the air fare for Hajj was Rs.58,800/- though
the normal air fare to and from Jeddah should have been                  H
    734       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2012] 5 S.C.R.


A   around Rs.25,000/. In the same paragraph, it is also stated that
    for the Hajj of 2011, e~ch pilgrim was charged Rs.16,000/-
    towards air fare. In other words, what was charged from the
    pilgrims is slightly less than 2/3rd of the otherwise normal fare.
    We see no justification for charging from the pilgrims an amount
8   that is much lower than even the normal air fare for a return
    journey to Jeddah.
       38. As regards the diffen3nce between the normal air fare
  and increased fare, we apprec:iate the intent of the Government
  of India to provide subsidy to cover the additional burden
C resulting from the stringent regulation imposed by the Saudi
  Arabian Authorities. We also take note of the fact that the grant
  of subsidy has been found to be constitutionally valid by this
  Court. We are also not oblivious of the fact that in many other
  purely religious events there are direct and indirect deployment
o of state funds and state resources. Nevertheless, we are of the
  view that Hajj subsidy is something that is best done away with.
        39. This Court has no claim to speak on behalf of all the
  Muslims of the country and it will be presumptuous for us to try
  to tell the Muslims what is for them a good or bad religious
E practice. Nevertheless, we have no doubt that a very large
  majority of Muslims applying to the Haj Committee for going to
  Hajj would not be aware of the economics of their pilgrimage
  and if all the facts are made known a good many of the pilgrims
  would not be very comfortable in the knowledge that their Hajj
F is funded to a substantial extent by the Government. We remind
  ourselves that the holy Quran in verse 97 in Surah 3, Al-e-lmran
  ordains as under:
          " 97. In it are manifest signs (for example), the Maqam
          (place) of Ibrahim (Abraham); whosoever enters it, he
G         attains security. And Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah) to the
          House (Ka'bah) is a duty that mankind owes to Allah,
          those who can afford the, expenses (for one's conveyance,
          provision and residencE~); and whoever disbelieves [i.e.
          denies Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah), then he is a disbeliever
H         of Allahj, then Allah stands not in need of any of the Alamin
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAFIQUE SHAIKH                                  735
           BHIKAN & ANR. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
       (mankind, jinn and all that exists)." 1                                          A

1.   The Noble Qur'an (English Translation of the meaning and commentary)
      published by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da'wahand
      Guidance of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which supervises King Fahd
      Complex For The Printing of the Holy Qur'an in Madinah Munawwarah.
      On being asked the meaning of the word "Al Sabeel' occurring in the verse,        B
     the Prophet is reported to have said, 'provisions for journey and the means
      of transport' (Bulughul Muram by lbne Hajr, 667 & 713: Jassas Razi,
     Ahkam-ul-Quran, Darul-Kitab-ul Arabi Vol.2 Page 23 : also in Tafseer lbne
      Kaseer published by Tameer-e-lnsaniyat, Urdu Bazar, Lahore, Vol.1 Pages
     458-459).
     On being asked when Hajj becomes obligatory, the Prophet is reported to
      have said when the provisions of journey and the mode of transport are
                                                                                        c
     available. (Tirmizi 813).
      It is related that people from Yaman used to come for pilgrimage without
     any provisions with them, saying that they were people trusting in God and
     when they came to Makkah, they resorted to begging: The holy Qur'an thus
     addressed this issue in Verse 197 Surah 2. Al-Baqarah (Bukhari, 1523).
     197. The Hall (pilgrimage) is (in) the well-known (lunar year) months (i.e.        D
     the 10th month, the 11th month and the first ten days of the 12th month of
     the Islamic calendar, i.e. two months and ten days). So whosoever intends
     to perform Hajj therein (by assuming lhram), then he should not have
     sexual relations (with his wife), nor commit sin, nor dispute unjustly during
     the Hajj. And whatever good you do, (be sure) Allah knows it. And take a
     provision (with you) for the journey, but the best provision is At-Taqwa-(piety,   E
     righteousness). So fear Me, 0 men of understanding!
     Hajj is obligatory when one has control over expenses of traveling and
     mode of transport whether as owner or on hire. Borrowing or using the
     means owned by someone else is impermissible. If someone offers gift
     for going for Hajj one is within rights to accepts or reject the offer. The
     expenses of traveling and mode of transport means that one should have,
     besides a house for residence, clothes, household articles, sufficient             F
     money for traveling to Makkah and for coming back; if there are any loans,
     to repay them and to leave behind sufficient money for expenses on those
     dependent upon him. (Fatawa-e-alamgiri edited and corrected by Abdul
     Latif Hasan Abdul Rehman Darul Kutubul llmiya Beirut, Lebanon 2000 Vol.1
     page 240).
     See also: the Religion of Islam by Maulana Mohammad Ali S.Chand and                G
     Company pages 525-526.
     See also: Kitab-ul-Fiqh by Abdul Rehman Al Jazeeri translatedby Mr.
     Manzoor Ahsan Abbassi, published by Mehqama Auqaf Punjab, Lahore,
     1977 Pages 1034-1035.
     See also: Qamusool Fiqh by Khalid Saifulla Rehmani, Kutubkhana
     Naiyeemya Deoband 206, Vol.3 Pages 195-196.
                                                                                        H
    736     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A        40. We, therefore, direct the Central Government to
    progressively reduce the amount of subsidy so as to completely
    eliminate it within a period of 10 years from today.

          41. The subsidy money may be more profitably used for
    upliftment of the community in education and other indices of
8
    social development

        42. Before leaving the issue of Hajj subsidy, we would like
  to point out that as the subsidy is progressively reduced and
  is finally eliminated. it is likely that more and more pilgrims
C would like to go for Hajj through PTOs. In that eventuality the
  need may arise for a substantial increase in the quota for the
  PTOs and the concerned authorities would then also be
  required to make a more nuanced policy for registration of PTOs
  and allocation of quotas of pilgrims to them. For formulating the
D PTO policy for the coming years, the concerned authorities in
  the Government of India should bear this in mind. They will also
  be well advised to invite and take into account suggestions
  from private operators/ travel agents for preparing the PTO
  policy for the future.

E THE GOODWILL HAJ1J DELEGATION

        43. The issue of the Goodwill Hajj Delegation raises two
  questions; one in regard to the reasonableness and justification
  for sending an official delegation on the occasion of Hajj and
F the other about its composition and the manner in which people
  are nominated as members of the official delegation. In the
  affidavit of the Union of India, it is stated that the Goodwill
  Delegation was first sent to Saudi Arabia in the year 1967 and
  since then the delegation is being sent every year. The primary
G purpose of the delegation, according to the affidavit, is "to
  convey goodwill on the auspicious occasion of Hajj to the
  Government of Saudi Arabia as well as to the Indian Pilgrims".
  It is further stated that the delegation interacts with the Hajj
  pilgrims from India, understands their issues and takes up the
H same with the Saudi Arabian authorities. The delegation
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAFIQUE SHAIKH                       737
        BHIKAN & ANR. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
addresses these issues in their meeting with the Minister of              A
Hajj, Saudi Arabia and the Governor of Makkah. The delegation
also has regular meetings with the Indian Hajj mission and the
Hajj authorities of Saudi Arabia. A report is submitted to the
Government about the conduct of Hajj and recommendations
for a better Hajj in the ensuing year.                                    B

     44. In the affidavit, it is further stated that a similar but much
smaller delegation comprising no more than five to eight
members is sent by Bangladesh. The Bangladesh delegation
usually consists of Minister of Hajj, Secretary (Hajj), people
working in the Islamic Organizations and one or two standing              C
members of Parliamentary Committee relating to Hajj/Religious
Affairs. The number of Hajj pilgrims from Bangladesh in the
year 2011 was one lakh fifty thousands. Pakistan does not send
any official Hajj Delegation.
                                                                          D
     45. As to the size of the delegation and the manner of
nomination of its members, from the affidavit it appears that in
1967 the Goodwill Delegation consisted of three members. Till
1973, there was no material increase in its size and till 1987
the number of its members remained under ten. Thereafter, the             E
delegation started steadily increasing in size and in 1997 the
Goodwill Delegation was of 31 members. In the year 2005,
there were 36 members in the delegation and in the year 2010
the number of its members was 30. In the year 2011, the
number was marginally reduced to 27.
                                                                          F
      46. In pursuance of our direction, the affidavit also gi11es a
list of the members of the Goodwill Hajj Delegation for the years
2002 to 2011. The affidavit does not disclose any criteria or
guidelines on the basis of which persons are selected for being
included in the Goodwill Delegation. From the list of the                 G
members of the Goodwill Delegation for a period of 10 years
no rational basis is discernible for selecting members for the
delegation. The list shows a disparate group of persons
randomly put together from various professions and walks of
life. What is more surprising is that there are some people who           H
    738      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 5 S.C.R.

A were able to go as member of the Goodwill Delegation more
  than once, some even three or four times. In the absence of a
  reasonable basis the nomination to the Goodwill Delegation
  evidently works on patronage and granting of favours. On the
  basis of the materials brought to our notice we have no doubt
8 that the way people are nominated as members of the Goodwill
  Delegation is in complete violation of Article 14 of the
  Constitution.

        47. Now coming back to the reasonableness and
  justification for sending an official Goodwill Delegation for Hajj,
C it is noted above that the first such delegation was sent in the
  year 1967. The sendin,g of the Goodwill Hajj Delegation from
  India for the first time in the year 1967 was not by accident or
  chance and those whose memory goes back to that year would
  recall the circumstances in which the official Goodwill
D Delegation on the occasion of Hajj was first sent to the
  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is no secret that after the 1965 war
  Pakistan tried to use 1even the Hajj pilgrimage for anti-India
  propaganda and the~ purpose of sending the Goodwill
  Delegation was to meet the anti-India propaganda.
E
        48. The reason for which the delegation was first sent has
  long ceased to exist and Pakistan is no longer sending any
  official Goodwill Hajj Delegation to Saudi Arabia. It may,
  however, be contended that with the passage of time the
F purpose of the dele9ation has changed in the changed
  circumstances the delegation serves other objects and purpose.
  As a matter of fact in the affidavit filed by the Union of India the
  sending of the Goodwill Hajj Delegation is justified on two other
  counts (1) to convey goodwill to the Government of Saudi
  Arabia as well as to the Indian pilgrims and (2) to oversee and
G facilitate reason the arrangements made for pilgrims that go
  for Hajj through the Haj Committees. Dealing first with the
  second reason, we am constrained to say that it appears quite
  unconvincing. In the earlier paragraph of the affidavit of the Union
  of India, it is stated that Hajj is one of the most complex
H
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAFIQUE SHAIKH                    739
        BHIKAN & ANR. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

organizational tasks undertaken by Government of India outside         A
its borders. It is further stated that all arrangements for the Hajj
of pilgrims are coordinated by the Consulate General of India,
Jeddah and the Embassy of India, Riyadh. Haj Committee of
India, established under the Haj Committee Act, 2002 is
responsible for making the arrangements for pilgrims                   B
performing Hajj through them. It is, thus, to be noted that the
making of arrangements for the pilgrims is the duty and
responsibility of Haj Committee of India, a statutory body
constituted under an Act of the Parliament. The arrangements
are further over seen by the Consulate General of India, Jeddah        c
and the Embassy of India, Riyadh. The arrangements are, thus,
looked after by competent professional people and any
intervention by a disparate group of persons themselves going
to Saudi Arabia for the first time is bound to create more
confusion than being of any help in making any proper                  D
arrangements for the ordinary pilgrims numbering over 125,000.
We are unable to accept the second reason given as
justification for sending the Goodwill Hajj Delegation.

     49. Coming now to the first reason, that is, to convey
goodwill to the Government of Saudi Arabia as well as to the           E
Indian pilgrims, we fully appreciate the idea of the people of
India extending their goodwill to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
on the auspicious occasion of Hajj but we completely fail to see
how even that purpose can be served by sending such a large,
unwieldy, amorphous and randomly selected delegation.                  F

    50. On a careful consideration of the issue we are quite
clear that the present practice of sending Goodwill Hajj
Delegation must come to stop. If the Government of India
wishes to send a message of goodwill to the Kingdom of Saudi           G
Arabia on the occasion of Hajj it may send a leader and a
deputy leader and if there be any need to present any group
from India for any formal event in the course of Hajj the leader
may, in consultation with the Indian Ambassador and Consul
General, constitute a group of ten Indians from among the very         H
    740           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A large number of Indian pilgrims who are there at their own
  expense. It is to be kept in mind that over a lakh and fifty
  thousand pilgrims go for Hajj paying for their own expenses.
  The Indian Ambassador in Saudi Arabia and perhaps more
  than him, the Consul General at Jeddah would know about the
B arrival of many distinguished, learned and important Muslims
  among them and with the assistance of the Ambassador and
  the Consul General, the leader of the two member official team
  would be able to form a far more appropriate and representative
  Indian team from amongst them than a motley delegation whose
c members are selected on irrelevant considerations.
         51. In this interim order we have primarily dealt with the
    issues of PTOs, Hajj Subsidy and the Goodwill Hajj Delegation.
    There are other issues which we propose to deal with in due
    course.
D
         52. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, it is
    stated that from the overall number of 1,70,000 pilgrims fixed
    under the bilateral agre1ement, the Government of India sets
    apart a quota of 11,000 seats to be reserved for the following
E   categories:-

          "(i)     Khadim-ul-Hujjaj (to assist Pilgrims in Saudi
                   Arabia) selEicted by the State Haj Committees
                   (300)

F         (ii)     Mehram (women who get selected in the Qurrah but
                   must have an accompanying male member as per
                   Saudi Law) (400)

          (iii)    The community of Bohras (2,500)
G         {iv)     States/ Union Territories on special consideration
                   e.g., Jammu and Kashmir (1,500) and
                   Lakshadweep (239)               ·

          (v)      States/Union Territories with Hajj applications in
H                  excess of Quota (2,500),
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAFIQUE SHAIKH                      741
         BHIKAN & ANR. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
      (vi)    Haj Committee of India (500) and                          A

      (vii)   Government of India (3,061 )"

We would like to know in greater detail how the special quotas
under the heads (i) to (vii) are allocated. It may be noted that
in paragraph 8 of the affidavit it is stated that the quota of          B
Government of India (3061 for this year) is allocated to
unselected/waitlisted applicants before the Haj Committees on
recommendation by dignitaries and eminent persons. We have
some initial reservations on allocation of seats on
recommendation by dignitaries and eminent persons.                      C

     53. We direct the Union of India to file further affidavit
stating in greater detail the way the quota of 11,000 seats is
being allocated for 2012 Hajj.

     54. We would also like to know in greater detail the               D
procedure followed by the Haj Committee of India and the state
Haj committees in making selection for sending pilgrims for
Hajj. We would specially like to examine the functioning of the
Haj Committees of the States where the number of applicants
exceed the quota allotted for the state.                                E

     55. We direct the Haj Committee of India to file a detailed
affidavit giving full details of the process of selection of pilgrims
from the applications made to the State Haj Committees. The
affidavit should also give details of the charges realized from         F
the pilgrims and the facilities made available to them.

      55. Haj Committees of the States of Maharashtra, Kerala
and Karnataka are directed to be impleaded as respondents.
Let notice go to them with a direction to file affidavits giving        G
details of the selection process and stating stage wise how
selections are being made for sending pilgrims for the 2012
Hajj, what amounts are charged from each pilgrim and what
facilities are provided to them.

     56. The affidavits, as directed above, must be filed within        H
    742       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2012] 5 S.C.R.


A   two months from today.

           57. Put up on July 23, 2012.

    SLP(C) Nos. 33190-33217 of 2011

B       58. In view of the order passed in SLP(C) No.28609/2011,
    these special leave petitions have become infructuous and are
    disposed of as such.

    IAs by private operators. .
c         59. In view of the order passed in SLP(C) No.28609/2011,
    all interlocutory applications filed by private operators/travel
    agents rai1sing objections to the Government of India 2012 Haj
    Policy stand disposed of.

D TP(C) Nos.191/2012, 192/2012, 196/2012, 197/2012, 198/
  2012, 199/2012.

       60. In view of the ord1:lr passed in SLP(C) No.28609/2011,
  the transfer petitions are rendered infructuous and stand
E disposed of accordingly.

    D.G.                    Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28609
                of 2011 is pending and other matters disposed of.