Summary
The challenge to the experience-and-turnover categories in the Haj Group Organisers Policy 2019–23 failed. The policy rested on expert data, stakeholder consultation and concern for pilgrims’ financial security; no ground for judicial interference was shown. A separate petitioner wrongfully denied registration in an earlier year obtained a direction for individual consideration of its resulting turnover difficulty within one week.
Issues
- Whether the Court should replace the policy’s turnover-and-experience categories with the operators’ proposed two-category formula.
- Whether one petitioner’s inability to earn turnover in a year when registration was wrongfully denied warranted individual consideration.
Held
- The remaining general controversy concerned the proposed categorisation and distribution formula; the Government had accepted two other prioritised suggestions after consultation. The challenged categories reflected both experience and financial strength, supported by the IIT Delhi study and the need to avoid pilgrims being stranded or facing hardship abroad. (¶ 10–18)
- Courts could not substitute a preferred policy merely because another formulation appeared better. Review was limited to statutory or constitutional infirmity, manifest arbitrariness, caprice or mala fides. None was established, and stakeholder views had been considered and accommodated as feasible. (¶ 18–21)
- The petitioner in Writ Petition 93 of 2019 had previously obtained a ruling that its 2017 registration application was wrongfully not considered. It should not suffer over turnover for that year; the competent authority was directed to consider its peculiar circumstances and pass orders, rather than the Court itself assigning a category. (¶ 22–24)
Result
Writ petitions disposed of: general policy challenge rejected; competent authority directed to consider the individual case in Writ Petition 93 of 2019 and pass necessary orders within one week.