Summary
The Supreme Court quashed rejection of Haj tour operators’ 2016 registration applications because the stated grounds relied on conditions from which they were expressly exempt. The authorities could not defend the decisions by offering different reasons later. With the relevant pilgrimages already over, the Court awarded public-law compensation of five lakh rupees per petitioner for patent arbitrariness violating Article 14, together with ten thousand rupees costs per petition. Payment was due within two months, failing which fifteen per cent annual interest would apply.
Issues
- Whether registration could be refused for non-compliance with expressly exempted conditions.
- Whether fresh reasons could subsequently sustain the rejection orders.
- What public-law relief remained after the pilgrimage years had elapsed.
Held
- The petitioners had qualified in 2015 but received no quota in the draw. The applicable 2016 norms exempted them from Annexure A clauses (vii), (x), (xi) and (xii), yet their applications were rejected for failure to meet those same conditions. The rejection letters were unsustainable. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12)
- An administrative order must be judged on the reasons it states. The authorities could not cure the rejection by asserting that the communicated reasons were mistaken and another ground actually existed. The Court applied Mohinder Singh Gill. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Because both 2016 and 2017 pilgrimage periods had passed, quota relief had become infructuous. Public-law compensation remained available so the petitioners were not left remediless by the authorities’ patently arbitrary conduct violating Article 14. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The same compensation principle applied to all identically situated petitioners, including those without an express alternative compensation prayer. Five lakh rupees per petitioner was awarded as public-law damages, without purporting to quantify actual business loss. (¶¶ 13, 17)
- Compensation was payable within two months; default would attract fifteen per cent annual interest, besides other available remedies. The respondents were permitted to recover damages and costs from the delinquent officers responsible. Costs were ten thousand rupees per petition. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Writ petitions allowed and rejection letters quashed. Five lakh rupees compensation per petitioner payable within two months, with fifteen per cent annual interest on default; ten thousand rupees costs per petition. Liberty to recover damages and costs from responsible officers.