Summary
In three challenges to refusal of Haj 2018 private-tour-operator registration, the Supreme Court upheld rejection of Ruby Tour Services and Hiba Exports but found Nawab Travels’ rejection based on trivial documentary errors unjustified. Nawab Travels received Rs.5 lakh public-law compensation rather than a reallocation of pilgrim quota. The other operators had not satisfactorily established their respective turnover and accommodation-document requirements.
Issues
- Whether the three operators satisfied the disputed Haj 2018 registration conditions and what relief followed from an unjustified rejection.
Provisions considered
- Annexure A, clauses (iv), (xi) and (xii), Private Tour Operators Policy for Haj 2018Applied the turnover, accommodation-document and Munazzim-card/visa requirements to each operator separately, distinguishing substantial non-compliance from insignificant identity-document errors. (¶¶ 6, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 33, 34)
Held
- Ruby Tour Services applied as a company but relied on a proprietorship’s turnover without documents establishing conversion or transfer of the business, assets and liabilities. The turnover rejection was supported by material. Earlier registration did not estop the Government from correcting previously unnoticed ineligibility; the separate accommodation objection need not be decided. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- The Government could obtain expert accounting assistance while independently applying its mind. Its order considered objections and replies as well as technical advice; mechanical reliance was not established. (¶ 24)
- Nawab Travels’ tour assistant was identifiable from the passport, visa and other submitted details. The spelling variation and extra passport-number digit in the Saudi-issued card were trivial errors, not a valid reason to reject an otherwise qualifying operator. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28)
- Following the public-law compensation approach in United Air Travel Services, Nawab Travels was awarded Rs.5 lakh, payable within two months; default attracted simple interest at fifteen per cent per annum. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 35)
- Hiba Exports did not satisfactorily explain why the receipts relied upon came from an entity other than its accommodation contractors. Reiterating its earlier reply without addressing that mismatch did not invalidate the rejection. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35)
Result
Ruby Tour Services and Hiba Exports petitions dismissed. Nawab Travels petition allowed to the extent of Rs.5 lakh compensation within two months, with 15% simple interest on default. Parties to bear their own costs.