# RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD v. UNION OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1169
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-07-30
- **Case number:** Writ Petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 In Writ Petition No.638 of 2018
- **Bench:** A. K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ruby-tour-services-pvt-ltd-v-union-of-india-33675
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

Haj Pilgrimage - Allocation of visas for Haj pilgrimage to
Private Tour Operators (PTOs) - On facts, applications for
registration by PTOs for Haj Pilgrimage-2018 - However, refusal
of registration by the Government for Haj Pilgrimage -2018 on the
ground of non-compliance of the various conditions in the Haj
Policy - Rejection of first application for non-submission of minimum
annual turnover certificate of Rs. 1 crore - Document for turnover
of different entity submitted - PTO who applied for registration is a
private limited company and document for turnover relied on was
of proprietorship firm - Rejection of second application for nonsubmission of legible copies of Munazzim card and Haj visa pages
of the passport of owner/proprietor - Rejection of third application
for non-submission of rental receipts and copy of lease deed duly
signed with the Saudi owners, rental receipt issued by party with
whom no contract for accommodation of PTOs was entered into -
Writ petition by PTOs seeking issuance of mandamus to the
Government to register petitioner as PTO for Haj Pilgrimage -2018
and allot appropriate quota - Held: As regards the first application,
the petitioner being aware, ought to have submitted all relevant
documents including conversion of proprietorship firm into private
limited company with transfer of its assets and liabilities - Since the
turnover of different entity was relied, the decision rejecting the
registration not perverse - Further, the Government cannot be
estopped to raise issue of ineligibility in case it escaped its notice in
any earlier order - Thus, there is no infirmity in the ground taken
while refusing registration - As regards the second application,
grounds are too trivial and insignificant, and cannot be said to be
any valid ground for rejection of the claim - Rejection of registration
of PTO for Haj Pilgrimage-2018 set aside and petitioner entitled to
compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs - As regards the third application,
 [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1169
 1169
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
although the rejection of the claim of the petitioner clearly mentions
about the mismatch and stated that receipt voucher has been issued
by entity with whom the contract for accommodation was not entered
into, but no proper explanation in the writ petition has been given,
thus, petitioner not entitled to any relief.
Disposing of the Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In Writ Petition No.638 of 2018, the petitioner
was well aware of the objections raised by the respondent under
Clause (iv) regarding turnover relied by the petitioner being of
different entity. The position ought to have been explained by
the petitioner by submitting all relevant documents including
conversion of Proprietorship Firm into Private Limited Company
with transfer of its assets and liabilities. The fact that turnover of
different entity was relied, the decision rejecting the registration
cannot be said to be perverse or based on no material. The
petitioner laid much emphasis that for the Haj 2017 when the
petitioner was granted registration, it was not open to respondent
to raise objections again. The submission that there are large
number of applications every year and there being time constraint
in verification of the application if in the event a PTO is ineligible
which escaped notice of the respondent in a particular year there
cannot be estoppel on the Government to raise issue of ineligibility
in the subsequent year, is accepted. The Government cannot be
estopped to raise issue of ineligibility in case it escaped its notice
in any earlier order. There is no infirmity in the ground taken in
the order dated 31.05.2018 in refusing registration due to noncompliance of Clause (iv). [Para 23] [1183-F-H; 1184-A-B]
1.2 The submission that report of Chartered Accountant
Firms empanelled by the respondent has been mechanically
considered cannot be accepted. The objections were raised after
scrutiny of the applica

## Text

_Characters 0–39,815 of 49,961. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39815 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1169
RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD.
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018)
JULY 30, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Haj Pilgrimage - Allocation of visas for Haj pilgrimage to
Private Tour Operators (PTOs) - On facts, applications for
registration by PTOs for Haj Pilgrimage-2018 - However, refusal
of registration by the Government for Haj Pilgrimage -2018 on the
ground of non-compliance of the various conditions in the Haj
Policy - Rejection of first application for non-submission of minimum
annual turnover certificate of Rs. 1 crore - Document for turnover
of different entity submitted - PTO who applied for registration is a
private limited company and document for turnover relied on was
of proprietorship firm - Rejection of second application for nonsubmission of legible copies of Munazzim card and Haj visa pages
of the passport of owner/proprietor - Rejection of third application
for non-submission of rental receipts and copy of lease deed duly
signed with the Saudi owners, rental receipt issued by party with
whom no contract for accommodation of PTOs was entered into -
Writ petition by PTOs seeking issuance of mandamus to the
Government to register petitioner as PTO for Haj Pilgrimage -2018
and allot appropriate quota - Held: As regards the first application,
the petitioner being aware, ought to have submitted all relevant
documents including conversion of proprietorship firm into private
limited company with transfer of its assets and liabilities - Since the
turnover of different entity was relied, the decision rejecting the
registration not perverse - Further, the Government cannot be
estopped to raise issue of ineligibility in case it escaped its notice in
any earlier order - Thus, there is no infirmity in the ground taken
while refusing registration - As regards the second application,
grounds are too trivial and insignificant, and cannot be said to be
any valid ground for rejection of the claim - Rejection of registration
of PTO for Haj Pilgrimage-2018 set aside and petitioner entitled to
compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs - As regards the third application,
 [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1169
 1169
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
although the rejection of the claim of the petitioner clearly mentions
about the mismatch and stated that receipt voucher has been issued
by entity with whom the contract for accommodation was not entered
into, but no proper explanation in the writ petition has been given,
thus, petitioner not entitled to any relief.
Disposing of the Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In Writ Petition No.638 of 2018, the petitioner
was well aware of the objections raised by the respondent under
Clause (iv) regarding turnover relied by the petitioner being of
different entity. The position ought to have been explained by
the petitioner by submitting all relevant documents including
conversion of Proprietorship Firm into Private Limited Company
with transfer of its assets and liabilities. The fact that turnover of
different entity was relied, the decision rejecting the registration
cannot be said to be perverse or based on no material. The
petitioner laid much emphasis that for the Haj 2017 when the
petitioner was granted registration, it was not open to respondent
to raise objections again. The submission that there are large
number of applications every year and there being time constraint
in verification of the application if in the event a PTO is ineligible
which escaped notice of the respondent in a particular year there
cannot be estoppel on the Government to raise issue of ineligibility
in the subsequent year, is accepted. The Government cannot be
estopped to raise issue of ineligibility in case it escaped its notice
in any earlier order. There is no infirmity in the ground taken in
the order dated 31.05.2018 in refusing registration due to noncompliance of Clause (iv). [Para 23] [1183-F-H; 1184-A-B]
1.2 The submission that report of Chartered Accountant
Firms empanelled by the respondent has been mechanically
considered cannot be accepted. The objections were raised after
scrutiny of the application to which reply was submitted by the
petitioner. In the event the Government received the assistance
from a Chartered Accountant Firm no exception can be taken to
such assistance provided it is proved that there is no nonapplication of mind by the Government on the relevant facts and
documents. In the present case order dated 31.05.2018 refers to
the objections raised, clarifications/replies submitted by the
petitioner. The technical advice received from the empanelled
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1171
Chartered Accountant Firms has also been relied to support its
conclusion in which no infirmity can be found. Thus, there are no
grounds for interfering in the order in W.P. No.638 of 2018.
[Para 24][1184-C-E]
2.1 As regards, Writ Petition No.646 of 2018, the Munazzim
Card and Haj Visa is issued in the name of tour assistant by the
Saudi Authorities. Details of tour assistants were already
submitted at Page No. 199 of the application, which was resubmitted alongwith clarification of the petitioner. In the translated
copy as is the case of the respondent, attested by the Director of
the PTO, the name of Abdur Razzaque was shown as Abdul
Razzaque. The Munazzim Card is issued by the Saudi Authorities
and the mention of word "l" in place of "r" at the end of the name
Abdur is on account of difference in pronounciation of the name
by the Saudi Authorities, which does not go to the root of the
matter since it is not the case of the respondent that the tour
assistant was any other person except the one who was authorised
by the petitioner. Further, the photocopy of the passport of Abdur
Razzaque Chand Mia was submitted by the petitioner alongwith
photograph and other details. Correct number of passport i.e. F8384646 is also submitted to the respondent. Photocopy of the
visa issued by the Saudi Authorities is also brought on the record
alongwith additional documents which mentions correct passport
number i.e. F-8384646. In the Munazzim Card issued by
authorities, it is also brought on record that passport number
mentioned is F-83847646. The digit "7" has been mentioned
additionally in the passport number, which is an obvious mistake.
The reliance on said two grounds which are too trivial and
insignificant, cannot be said to be any valid ground for rejection
of the claim. Moreover when the same tour assistant with the
same passport number has conducted the Haj services for the
year 2010, the respondent's authorities while considering the
case of the PTO for registration have to advert to the substance
of the matter and substance of the reply submitted by the PTO
need to be gone into. In event of PTO fulfills other conditions,
rejection of claim on trivial and non-substantial grounds cannot
be countenanced. The rejection of registration of the PTO for
Haj-2018 in the instant case cannot be supported and deserves
to be set aside. [Para 28] [1185-C-H; 1186-A]
RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
2.2 The petitioner is entitled for same compensation of Rs.5
lakh, which is adequate compensation for the loss suffered by
the petitioner and shall subserve the justice. It is further directed
that the said amount be paid within two months from this date,
failing which the amount would carry simple interest @ 15 per
cent per annum. [Para 32] [1189-C]
3. As regards Writ Petition No.668 of 2018, although the
rejection of the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition, clearly
mentions about the mismatch and stated that receipt voucher
has been issued by entity with whom the contract for
accommodation was not entered into, but no proper explanation
in the writ petition has been given. The writ petition only
reiterates what was stated in the reply dated 31.03.2018 without
explaining the objection raised by the respondent. There was
valid reason for the respondent to refuse registration to the
petitioner when the objection was raised, which was not
satisfactorily replied by the petitioner. The petitioner is not
entitled for any relief. [Para 34][1189-G-H; 1190-A, B]
Union of India v. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan (2013) 4 SCC
699 : [2013] 5 SCR 428 ; Jeddah Travels and Jeddah
Hajj Group v.. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 378 ;
United Air Travels Services Through its Proprietor
A.D.M. Anwar Khan v. Union of India through
Secretary (Ministry of External Affairs) (2018) 7
SCALE 1: AIR 2018 SC 2264 ; Nilabati Behera v. State
of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 : [1993] 2 SCR 581 ;
Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India
(1999) 6 SCC 667 : [1999] 3 SCR 1279 ; N. Nagendra
Rao & Co. v. State of A.P. (1994) 6 SCC 205 : [1994] 3
Suppl. SCR 144 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 5 SCR 428
referred to
Para 3
(2014) 14 SCC 378
referred to
Para 29
(2018) 7 SCALE 1
referred to
Para 30
[1993] 2 SCR 581
referred to
Para 31
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1173
[1999] 3 SCR 1279
 referred to
Para 31
[1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 144 referred to
Para 31
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 638 of 2018.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
 WITH
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 646 and 668 of 2018.
K. K. Venugopal, AG, Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Sanjay Hegde,
Sr. Adv., Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Ms. Taiba Khan, Rajat Bhardwaj,
Santosh Krishnan, Zulfiker Ali P. S, Faisal M. Aboobacker, Lakshmi
Sree Puthenpurackal, Ainul Ansari, Kripa Shankar Prasad, Harshad V.
Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Ms. Ashly Harshad, Bhuvan Mishra, Hemant
Arya, Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, R. Bala, Ms. Aarti Sharma, Raj Bahadur
Yadav, Sumit Goel, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, R. Balasubramanian, Vinay Kr.
Yadav, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These three writ petitions under Article
32 of the Constitution of India have been filed by three Private Tour
Operators (PTOs) challenging the communications dated 31.05.2018
issued by the Ministry of Minority Affairs rejecting their applications
submitted for registration of PTOs for Haj 2018. The applications of
petitioners have been rejected for not fulfilling few conditions as
enumerated in Annexure A of PTO Policy for Haj 2018.
2. The Haj Pilgrimage by Muslims all over the world has been
treated as of utmost religious importance and Muslims all over the world
have been going for Haj Pilgrimage to Makkah and Madina for last
several centuries. Until year 2002, the Saudi Arabian Government was
directly allotting visas for Haj to the private tour operators and separately
allotting quota of visas for the Haj pilgrims travelling through the Haj
Committee of India. Thereafter the Saudi Government started allotting
one single quota of Haj visas to the Government of India, who in turn
would allot part of the said quota to the PTOs and retained part of the
said quota for itself for allotment through the Haj Committee of India.
RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
3. The policy for allotment of quota to the private tour operators
has been issued by the Government of India from time to time. The
Policy for registration of private tour operators for Haj 2013 came for
consideration before this Court and this Court after elaborate
consideration approved the Haj Policy-2013 with certain modifications.
This Court by its judgment dated 16.04.2013 in Union of India Vs.
Rafique Shaikh Bhikan, (2013) 4 SCC 699, approved the Haj Policy
2013, Appendix I of the judgment contained the policy for registration of
private tour operators - Haj 2013, the terms and conditions for registration
of Private Tour Operators (PTOs) for Haj 2013 in Annexure-A, in
Annexure-B other important instructions/guidelines for Haj 2013 and in
Annexure-C application for registration as Private Tour Operators
(PTOs). The policy was initially directed to remain valid for five years,
i.e., 2013-2017. The Government of India has extended the said policy
for the year 2018. The proceeding for formulation of fresh policy for
the next five years, i.e., 2019 onwards is in process, we, however, in the
present writ petitions are only concerned with the Haj Policy of 2018.
4. After 2013 also, there has been various subsequent decisions
by this Court while considering Haj Policy for subsequent years, which
shall be noticed by us little later. The Government of India (Ministry of
Minority Affairs) vide its circular dated 09.12.2017 issued policy for
Private Tour Operators for Haj 2018. The applications were invited on
or before 05.01.2018. Annexure A to the policy was "Terms and
Conditions for Registration of Private Tour Operators (PTOs) for Haj2018". Annexure B contained "Other Important Instructions/Guidelines
for Haj-2018. Annexue C contained "Application for Registration as
Private Tour Operator (PTO)" - Haj 2018. All the petitioners in pursuance
of the said circular has submitted their applications for registration for
Haj-2018. After certain queries, separate communication dated
31.05.2018 has been issued to petitioners refusing registration of them
as Private Tour Operators for Haj-2018, which communication has been
challenged.
5. The prayers made in all the writ petitions being identical, it is
sufficient to notice the prayers made in the Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of
2018. which are to the following effect:-
"(a) Declare that the order dated 31.05.2018 by the respondent
is illegal and unconstitutional and consequentially, issue Mandamus
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1175
to the respondent to register petitioner as a PTO for Haj 2018 and
allot appropriate quota;
(b) Alternatively, Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent to grant
registration to the petitioner as PTO for conducting Haj Tour,
2019;
(c) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding and directing the respondent to pay compensation to
the petitioner for the loss occurred to it by not granting registration
for Haj 2018;
(d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
think fit in the interest of justice and equity."
6. As noted above, the applications of petitioners were rejected
due to non-compliance of various conditions as enumerated in Annexure
A. Application of petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018 has
been rejected for non-compliance of Clause (iv) and Clause (xi).
Application of petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 646 of 2018 has been
rejected for non-compliance of Clause (xii), whereas application of
petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 668 of 2018 has been rejected for
non-compliance of Clause (xi). Thus, it is sufficient to notice Clause
(iv), Clause (xi) and Clause (xii) of Annexure A for deciding these writ
petitions, which are to the following effect:-
Clause(iv)
Minimum Annual Turnover of INR One Crore or more
from Haj and Umrah operations during any of the two
preceding financial years along with Balance Sheet and
Profit & Loss Account-duly audited by the Statutory
Auditors, Tax Audit Report and Income Tax Return (ITR).
Clause (xi) Contract for hiring of buildings for pilgrims and "Tasreeh"
together with English translations PTO category wise.
(Please enclose rental receipts and a copy of lease deed,
duly signed with the Saudi owners).
Clause (xii) Copy of Munazzim Card and relevant Haj visa pages of
the Passport of the Proprietor/Owner.
RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
7. Now, we proceed to notice the facts of each writ petition.
 Writ Petition (C) No. 638 of 2018 - Ruby Tour Services
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
8. The petitioner was a qualified Private Tour Operator from 2002
to 2015 and 2017 and was so registered with the Government of India.
After issue of Haj Policy-2013, the respondent had released the list of
qualified Private Tour Operators for the Haj-2013, in which name of
petitioner was included at Sl. No.224 of qualified Private Tour Operators
under Category I. In the year 2014, 2015, petitioner's name was included
in the List of eligible Private Tour Operators. Petitioner conducted services
for Haj-2015 without any complaint. By press release dated 29.04.2016,
applications were invited from eligible Private Tour Operators for
registration of Haj - 2016 in response to which, petitioner applied. The
respondent vide communication dated 26.07.2016 rejected the application
of the petitioner for Haj-2016. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition (C)
No. 623 of 2016 against the rejection of its application for Haj-2016, in
which notice was issued by this Court on 08.08.2016. The respondent
after the scrutiny of the application and documents submitted by the
petitioner, found the petitioner eligible to conduct Haj Pilgrimage for 2017
and accordingly issued certificate of registration and allotted quota of
105 pilgrims. The Writ Petition (C) No. 623 of 2016 filed by the petitioner
has been dismissed as infructuous. In pursuance of Circular dated
09.12.2017 inviting applications, petitioner submitted an application along
with supporting documents. Fourteen queries were raised by the
respondent through e-mail dated 25.03.2018 raising different objections.
Petitioner vide its letter dated 05.04.2018 submitted reply to all the queries
raised.
9. In query No. 11 regarding turn over details, following was
communicated:
"PTO attached Turnover Certificate of 2.16 cr. of ruby tour and
travels and have mentioned that the documents explaining the
same have been attached on page 50-52 of the Application File
but there are no such documents on record which explain the
turnover of 2.16 cr."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1177
10. Petitioner had replied the said query in its reply as follows:-
"The Turnover Certificate of INR 2.16CR is attached herewith
for your kind perusal. The omission error of Page No. 50-52 is
highly regrettable."
11. With regard to non-compliance of Clause(xi) of Annexure-A,
the Government noticed the reply dated 05.04.2018 but has refused to
register citing technical advice from empanelled Chartered Accountant
Firms. It is useful to refer to Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the letter dated
31.05.2018, which contains the consideration by the Government of
India:-
"2. As per Clause (iv) of Annexure A of PTO Policy, the said
PTO was required to submit the turnover certificate. On scrutiny
of the documents submitted by the PTO, it has been found that
PTO is not fulfilling the clause(iv) of Annexure A of PTO Policy
for Haj 2018. The PTO was requested to clarify the followings:-
"PTO attached Turnover Certificate of 2.16 cr. of Ruby Tour
and Travels and have mentioned that the documents explaining
the same have been attached on page 50-52 of the Application
File but there are no such documents on record which explain
the turnover of 2.16 cr."
3. As per Clause (xi) of Annexure A of PTO Policy, the said PTO
was required to submit rental receipts and a copy of lease deed,
duly signed with the Saudi owners. On scrutiny of the documents
submitted by the PTO, it has been found that PTO is not fulfilling
the clause (xi) of Annexure A. The PTO was requested to clarify
the followings:-
"In the invoice copy of Makkah 2 invoice dated 17/08/2015
there is a condition that PTO should send the payment on or
before 25/07/2015 which is prima facie not possible as that
date has already passed. Moreover payment made on 19/08/
2015 but receipt for the same issued on 24/07/2015. Hence
the authenticity of the Receipt cannot be established."
4. The said PTO in its reply clarified as under:
"The Turnover Certificate of INR 2.16CR is attached herewith
for your kind perusal. The omission error of Page No. 50-52
is highly regrettable."
RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
"In the Invoice copy of Makkah 2 Invoice dated 17/08/2015,
the supplier has erroneously typed the wrong sending date as
25/07/2015 instead of 25/08/2015, and also the receipt issued
date as 24/07/2015, instead of 24/08/2015. We regret the
oversight by supplier and hereby attach the swift copy along
with Invoice and Bank Statement details to authenticate the
same. The Tashree agreement dated 17.08.2015 also
authenticates the transaction done in August 2015".
5. As per the technical advice received from the empanelled
Chartered Accountant Firms and on scrutiny of the clarification/
reply of the PTO, it has been observed that the PTO Applicant's
turnover is less than Rs.1 crore from Haj and Umrah operations
as required under Clause (iv) of Annexure A of PTO Policy 2018.
It is further observed that the receipt of accommodation is dated
prior to the date of Payment (as authenticated from the Bank
Statement and Foreign exchange Purchase Invoices). Hence the
Receipts lack authenticity. The requirements of Clause (iv) and
(xi) of Annexure A of PTO Policy 2018 are not complied."
12. The petitioner has filed additional documents to support its
reply given on 05.04.2018. Counter Affidavit has also been filed by the
respondent.
Writ Petition (C) No. 646 of 2018 - M/s. Nawab Travels
 Private Limited Vs. Union of India
13. The petitioner had been found eligible for the years 2002,
2006-I, 2006-II, 2007 to 2010 and during each period, registration
certificate was issued to the petitioner and Haj quotas were also allotted.
In response to the circular dated 09.12.2017 inviting applications for
Private Tour Operators for Haj-2018, petitioner also submitted an
application. Certain clarifications were sought through online PTO portal.
Petitioner submitted its clarification on 04.04.2018. By communication
dated 31.05.2018, the petitioner's application was refused to register on
the ground of non-fulfillment of Clause (xii) of Annexure A. It is useful
to extract Paras 2, 3 and 4 of the communication dated 31.05.2018,
which is to the following effect:-
"2. As per Clause (xii) of Annexure A of PTO Policy, the said
PTO was required to submit the copy of Munazzim card and Haj
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1179
visa pages of the passport of the owner/proprietor. On scrutiny
of the documents submitted by the PTO, it has been found that
PTO is not fulfilling the Clause (xii) of Annexure A. The PTO
was sent the following observation:-
"Copies of Munazzim Card and visa copy are not legible."
3. The said PTO in its reply clarified as under:
"It is hereby clarified that the Munazzim Card and Haj Visa is
issued in the name of Tour Assistant. We have deputed
Mr. Abdur Razzaque Chand Mia as Tour Assistant for Haj
2010. We have already submitted a drafted letter providing
details of Tour Assistant along with the Application for
Registration of PTO for Haj 2018 vide Page No. 199, we are
again submitting self-attested copy of the same for your kind
perusal."
4. As per the technical advice received from the empanelled
Chartered Accountant Firms and on scrutiny of the clarification/
reply of the PTO it has been observed that the copies of Munazim
Card and Haj Visa pages copy provided in the Physical file and
uploaded on the portal were not completely legible. A difference
was found in the name and Passport No. as per Munazim Card
and Visa Copy. Other details were not legible. Copies of Munazzim
Card and Visa Copy are not attached in the clarification. The
same is required under Clause (xii) of Annexure A of PTO Policy
2018. Hence, the copy of Munazzim card and Haj Visa pages of
the passport of the owner/proprietor as required under Clause
(xii) of Annexure A of PTO Policy for Haj 2018 is not complied."
14. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Petitioner
has also filed additional documents to support his reply.
Writ Petition (C) No. 668 of 2018 - M/s. Hiba Exports India
 Vs. Union of India
15. The petitioner - a sole proprietor is carrying on the business
of recruitment for deployment of Indian workers with foreign employers,
who is license holder for last 20 years from Government of India. The
petitioner firm also provided Haj services to the pilgrims for the year
2002, 2009, 2010 and 2011. In response to registration of Private Tour
RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
Operators-Haj 2013, petitioner also submitted its application. After
response to the explanations called for from the petitioner and submission
of clarifications by petitioner vide letter dated 30.07.2013, petitioner was
included in the List issued on 07.01.2014. For the year 2014 and 2015,
petitioner's name was not included as a qualified Private Tour Operator.
Petitioner had also filed Writ Petition (C) No. 413 of 2015, in response to
registration for Haj 2016, petitioner submitted application and his name
was included in the list of private tour operators issued on 29.04.2016.
Although, petitioner was included in the list of Private Tour Operators
for the draw of lots as per Press Release dated 29.04.2016 but
unfortunately was not granted quota due to draw of lots. Petitioner was
thus eligible for quota of Haj Pilgrimage for 2017 even without draw of
lots. In response to application for Haj-2018, petitioner submitted its
application, objections were raised by communication dated 25.03.2018,
which were duly replied. The application of the petitioner for registration
for Haj-2018 has been rejected by communication dated 31.05.2018. In
Paras 2 and 3 of the communication, following has been stated:-
"2. As per Clause (xi) of Annexure A of PTO Policy, the said
PTO was required to submit rental receipts and a copy of lease
deed, duly signed with the Saudi owners. As per the technical
advice received from the empanelled Chartered Accountant Firms
and on scrutiny of the clarification/reply of the PTO the following
has been observed:
"The PTO has not submitted Rental receipt of SAR 22500/-
for contract No. 705522 entered with Ali M.A. Jabullah
(Amjadus Salam) and Rental Receipt of SAR 75000/- for
Contract No.213351 entered with Zaid A.A. Abid for hiring of
accommodation for pilgrims, instead submitted with reply of
the query Receipt Voucher No.0006 for SAR 200000/- issued
by Muttawiffy Hujjaj South Asia Establishment and Receipt
Voucher No.49812 which is in Arabic and no translation of the
same has been submitted. Hence PTO has not complied with
the requirement of Clause (xi) of Annexure A of PTO Policy"
4. In view of the deficiencies mentioned in Para 2 above, M/s.
Hiba Exports India, D 60/4 FIRST FLOOR NEAR GREEN
PARK, METRO STATION GATE NO.1 YUSUF SARAI, NEW
DELHI-110016 has not been found eligible for registration and
allocation of quota for Haj 2018."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1181
16. We have heard Shri Santosh Krishnan, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in first two writ petitions. We have also
heard learned counsel appearing in Writ Petition (C) No.668 of 2018.
Shri K.K. Venugopal learned Attorney General and Ms. Pinky Anand,
learned Additional Solicitor General have been heard for the respondent.
17. Shri Santosh Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner
assailing the order dated 31.05.2018 of the respondent in Writ Petition
No.638 of 2018 submits that the two reasons given in the order dated
31.05.2018 have no basis. The petitioner had fully complied with Clause
(iv) of Annexure A since it has filed all relevant documents showing
turnover of Rs.2.16 crore during the financial year 2015-16. He refers
pages 6 to 27 of additional documents filed in the writ petition attacking
on the averments made in the counter-affidavit that the PTO did not
submit its own balance-sheet but submitted the balance-sheet of Ruby
Tours & Travels. It is submitted that till Haj 2015, the petitioner herein
was conducting the service as a Proprietorship Firm under the name
Ruby Tours & Travels. However, from Haj 2017 the entity Type was
changed to Private Limited Company and this fact having been accepted
by all authorities including the respondent for Haj 2017, the ground was
no longer available to reject the registration by the respondent for Haj
2018. Coming to the second reason that violation of Clause (xi), the
petitioner submitted all documents including the Contract for hiring of
buildings and rent receipts, proof of payment through authorised channel
and invoices from the owner, however, due to a typographical error by
the building owner at Saudi Arabia, date of receipt is mentioned as
25.07.2015 instead of 25.08.2015 and date of payment is mentioned as
24.07.2015 instead of 20.08.2015. A Bank statement and soft copy would
show that payment was actually made on 25.08.2015.
18. Learned counsel further submitted that there has been no
application of mind by the respondent while refusing registration. The
respondent has mechanically followed the advice given by Chartered
Accountant Firms. The rejection was premised on the technical advice
received from the empanelled Chartered Accountant Firms which itself
shows non-application of mind by the respondent.
19. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General, refuting the
above submissions contends that order rejecting registration has been
issued considering the objections raised, clarifications/replies submitted
and documents submitted by the petitioner. He submitted that the
RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
documents for turnover submitted by the petitioner were the documents
of Proprietorship Firm that is Ruby Tours & Travels whereas registration
was applied for Haj by the Private Limited Company and no documents
have been submitted that Proprietorship Firm has been converted into
Private Limited Company. The petitioner which is a Private Limited
Company cannot rely on turnover of Proprietorship Firm. It is submitted
that decision was arrived after application of mind and the rejection
having been based on valid reason this Court shall not substitute its own
decision with that of department. On submission pertaining to second
ground, it is contended that PTO's application that there was a
typographical error, cannot be submitted since typographical error was
not only in one document but in the various documents submitted by the
PTO which fact itself raises question of credibility of the PTO.
20. We have gone through the rival submissions and perused the
records of Writ Petition No.638 of 2018.
21. For turnover the petitioner has placed reliance on certificate
of Chartered Accountants dated 02.01.2018 as Annexure P-18. The
certificate reads:
 "To whomsoever it may concern
 This is to certify that the Ruby Tours & Travels (Prop.
Nazir Ahmed Shaikh) having its office at 7/8, Ground Floor,
2421 East Street Galleria, East Street Camp, Pune-411001
had doing the business of Haj Tours.
 This is also to certify that Ruby Tours & Travels is having
Haj turnover of Rs.2.16 Crore during the financial year 201516.
 This is on the basis of information, explanations & records
produced before me.
For A S Gholkar & Co.
Chartered Accountants
Amit S. Gholkar
(Proprietor)
Place: Pune
Date: 02/01/2018
Certificate No.ASG/2017-18/068."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1183
22. The petitioner has applied quota as Private Limited Company
which fact is not disputed. Objection was raised by query dated
25.03.2018 that all documents were submitted for Private Limited
Company but previous quota including 2015 were allotted to proprietor.
The Type of entity is changed. After considering the reply ultimately
order dated 31.05.2018 stated that PTO's turnover is less than Rs.1
crore as required under Clause (iv). In the counter-affidavit as well as in
the oral submissions, the aforesaid ground was relied on behalf of the
respondents for rejection. The petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit to
the counter-affidavit in which petitioner submits that till Haj 2015 petitioner
was conducting service as a Proprietorship Firm under the name Ruby
Tours & Travels, however, from Haj 2017 the entity Type was changed
to Private Limited Company. The PTO who has applied for registration
is admittedly a Private Limited Company and the turnover which is relied
was of a Proprietorship Firm. It is not the case that the Company having
incorporated after the Proprietor business was closed. It is not a case of
conversion of Proprietorship Firm into Company. No documents have
been submitted that Proprietorship Firm sold its entire business to the
Company. It is also relevant to point out that when the petitioner had
applied for registration for Haj 2016, the objection was raised by letter
dated 07.06.2016 of the respondent where following was stated:
"2(vi). In the application form the PTO has mentioned it is a
proprietorship firm but as per documents provided it is a
private limited company. Further, the names of all directors
are also not disclosed."
23. Thus, the petitioner was well aware of the objections raised
by the respondent under Clause (iv) regarding turnover relied by the
petitioner being of different entity. The position ought to have been
explained by the petitioner by submitting all relevant documents including
conversion of Proprietorship Firm into Private Limited Company with
transfer of its assets and liabilities. The fact that turnover of different
entity was relied, the decision rejecting the registration cannot be said to
be perverse or based on no material. Learned counsel for the petitioner
laid much emphasis that for the Haj 2017 when the petitioner was granted
registration, it was not open to respondent to raise objections again.
Learned Attorney General submitted that there are large number of
applications every year and there being time constraint in verification of
the application if in the event a PTO is ineligible which escaped notice of
RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
the respondent in a particular year there cannot be estoppel on the
Government to raise issue of ineligibility in the subsequent year. We find
substance in the submission of the learned Attorney General. The
Government cannot be estopped to raise issue of ineligibility in case it
escaped its notice in any earlier order. We, thus, do not find any infirmity
in the ground taken in the order dated 31.05.2018 in refusing registration
due to non-compliance of Clause (iv). We having upheld the order dated
31.05.2018, it is not necessary for us to consider the rival submissions
with regard to non-compliance of Clause (xi).
24. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
report of Chartered Accountant Firms empanelled by the respondent
has been mechanically considered also cannot be accepted. The
objections were raised after scrutiny of the application to which reply
was submitted by the petitioner. In the event the Government received
the assistance from a Chartered Accountant Firm no exception can be
taken to such assistance provided it is proved that there is no nonapplication of mind by the Government on the relevant facts and
documents. In the present case order dated 31.05.2018 refers to the
objections raised, clarifications/replies submitted by the petitioner. The
technical advice received from the empanelled Chartered Accountant
Firms has also been relied to support its conclusion in which no infirmity
can be found. We, thus, are of the view that there are no grounds for
interfering in the order dated 31.05.2018 in Writ Petition No.638 of 2018
which writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is
accordingly dismissed.
25. Now coming to the Writ Petition (C) No. 646 of 2018.
Mr. Santosh Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner with emphasis
and clarity submits that reasons given in the Order dated 31.05.2018 for
refusing registration is trivial and non-existent. He submits that copies
of Munazzim card and Visa copy were duly submitted and the error
pointed out in the name of Mr. Abdur Razzaque as Abdul Razzaque in
Munazzim card being insignificant and trivial, ought not to have been
relied by the respondent to reject the claim. It is further submitted that
typographical error in passport number as contained in the Munazzim
Card was also to be ignored since the copy of the passport with correct
number was already submitted and it was not the case of the respondent
that any other person apart from Abdur Razzaque was tour Assistant of
the petitioner.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1185
26. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General refuting
the submissions contended that the name as per translation duly attested
by the Director of PTO showed the name as Abdul and there was
difference in passport number in the Munazzim Card, which showed
passport No. as F-83847646 whereas the correct passport number is
F-8384646. It is submitted that rejection was on valid ground.
27. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the records.
28. The Munazzim Card and Haj Visa is issued in the name of
tour assistant by the Saudi Authorities. Details of tour assistants were
already submitted at Page No. 199 of the application, which was resubmitted alongwith clarification of the petitioner. In the translated copy
as is the case of the respondent, attested by the Director of the PTO,
the name of Abdur Razzaque was shown as Abdul Razzaque. The
Munazzim Card is issued by the Saudi Authorities and the mention of
word "l" in place of "r" at the end of the name Abdur is on account of
difference in pronounciation of the name by the Saudi Authorities, which
does not go to the root of the matter since it is not the case of the
respondent that the tour assistant was any other person except the one
who was authorised by the petitioner. Further, the photocopy of the
passport of Abdur Razzaque Chand Mia was submitted by the petitioner
alongwith photograph and other details. Correct number of passport i.e.
F-8384646 is also submitted to the respondent. Photocopy of the visa
issued by the Saudi Authorities is also brought on the record alongwith
additional documents which mentions correct passport number i.e.
F-8384646. In the Munazzim Card issued by authorities, it is also brought
on record before us that passport number mentioned is F-83847646.
The digit "7" has been mentioned additionally in the passport number,
which is an obvious mistake. We are of the view that the reliance on
aforesaid two grounds which are too trivial and insignificant, cannot be
said to be any valid ground for rejection of the claim. Moreover when
the same tour assistant with the same passport number has conducted
the Haj services for the year 2010, the respondent's authorities while
considering the case of the PTO for registration have to advert to the
substance of the matter and substance of the reply submitted by the
PTO need to be gone into. In event of PTO fulfills other conditions,
rejection of claim on trivial and non-substantial grounds cannot be
countenance. We are of the view that rejection of registration of the
RUBY TOUR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
PTO for Haj-2018 in the present case cannot be supported and deserves
to be set aside.
29. Now, we come to the question of relief, which is to be granted
to the petitioner, in view of our above decision that rejection of claim of
petitioner for Haj-2018 was unfounded. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Jeddah Travels
and Jeddah Hajj Group Vs. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 378,
where this Court laid down following in Paragrpah 7:-
"7.