# SUBHAN TOURS & TRAVEL SERVICES v. UNION OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [2016] 2 S.C.R. 768
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016-05-27
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 239 of2016
- **Bench:** Abhay Manohar Sapre, Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/subhan-tours-travel-services-v-union-of-india-31118
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Haj - Writ petition u/Art. 32 of Constitution - By Private Tour
Operators (PTO) - Seeking direction to the authorities c;oncerned
C
to consider their application for registration as PTO for conducting
Haj tours for the year 2016-17 - Held: Liberty granted to each
writ petitioner to make a fresh application on or before 27.5.2016
as prescribed for grant of permission to take the pilgrims for haj
for the year 2016 to the prescribed authority -Authority concerned
directed to examine, consider and decit:/e each such application on
D
its merit strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order
- Writ petitions disposed of - Constitution of India - Art.32.
Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajique Shaikh Bhikan &
Ors. 2013 (5) SCR 428 = 2013 (4) SCC 699; Jeddah
Travels & Jeddah Hajj Group vs. Union of India 2014
E
(14) SCC 378 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2013 (5) SCR 428
referred to
2014 (14) sec 378
referred to
Para9
Para\I
F
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 239
G
of2016.
Under Artcile 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
WITH
W. P. NOS. 844 & 845 OF 2015
W. P. NOS. 70, 71, 72, 166, 211, 246, 263, 279, 280,318, 319,320,
325,344,286,317,64,362,363,364,310,360,328,369,368,2620F
2016.
,.
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Goel, Marsook Bafaki, Sayid Marzook
H
Bafaki, Zulfiker Ali P. S., Faisal M. Aboo Baiker, Harshad V. Hameed,
768
SUBHAN TOURS & TRAVEL SERVICES v. UNION OF INDIA
769
Dileep Poolakkot, Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Z. U. Khan, Syed lmtiyaz Ali,
A
R. D. Upadhyay, K. Raghavacharyulu, Kailash Pandey, Ranjeet Singh,
Arindam Dey, K. V. Sreekumar, Z. U. Khan, Chandra Bhushan Prasad,
Mohd. Ainu) Ansari, Manoj Kumar Goyal for the Petitioner.
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, ASG, Bhuban Mishra, Ritin Rai, Ms. Sweta
Garg, Siddhartha Jha, Ms. Sadhvi Mohindru, B. Krishna Prasad for the
B
Respondents.

## Text

A
B
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 768
SUBHAN TOURS & TRAVEL SERVICES
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(Writ Petition No. 239 of2016 etc.)
MAYl8,2016.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.)
Haj - Writ petition u/Art. 32 of Constitution - By Private Tour
Operators (PTO) - Seeking direction to the authorities c;oncerned
C
to consider their application for registration as PTO for conducting
Haj tours for the year 2016-17 - Held: Liberty granted to each
writ petitioner to make a fresh application on or before 27.5.2016
as prescribed for grant of permission to take the pilgrims for haj
for the year 2016 to the prescribed authority -Authority concerned
directed to examine, consider and decit:/e each such application on
D
its merit strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order
- Writ petitions disposed of - Constitution of India - Art.32.
Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajique Shaikh Bhikan &
Ors. 2013 (5) SCR 428 = 2013 (4) SCC 699; Jeddah
Travels & Jeddah Hajj Group vs. Union of India 2014
E
(14) SCC 378 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2013 (5) SCR 428
referred to
2014 (14) sec 378
referred to
Para9
Para\I
F
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 239
G
of2016.
Under Artcile 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
WITH
W. P. NOS. 844 & 845 OF 2015
W. P. NOS. 70, 71, 72, 166, 211, 246, 263, 279, 280,318, 319,320,
325,344,286,317,64,362,363,364,310,360,328,369,368,2620F
2016.
,.
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Goel, Marsook Bafaki, Sayid Marzook
H
Bafaki, Zulfiker Ali P. S., Faisal M. Aboo Baiker, Harshad V. Hameed,
768
SUBHAN TOURS & TRAVEL SERVICES v. UNION OF INDIA
769
Dileep Poolakkot, Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Z. U. Khan, Syed lmtiyaz Ali,
A
R. D. Upadhyay, K. Raghavacharyulu, Kailash Pandey, Ranjeet Singh,
Arindam Dey, K. V. Sreekumar, Z. U. Khan, Chandra Bhushan Prasad,
Mohd. Ainu) Ansari, Manoj Kumar Goyal for the Petitioner.
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, ASG, Bhuban Mishra, Ritin Rai, Ms. Sweta
Garg, Siddhartha Jha, Ms. Sadhvi Mohindru, B. Krishna Prasad for the
B
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. This decision shall dispose
of all the writ petitions because as stated by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, all these writ petitions essentially involve
C
common issues.
2. These writ petitions are filed by the writ petitioners under Article
32 of the Constitution oflndia for claiming following reliefs.
"(a) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding and directing the respondents to accept application
for registration and issue Registration Certificate as PTO under
Category II for conducting Haj Tour, 2016;
(b )Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding and directing the respondents to consider the right
of first registration to the Petitioner for conducting Haj Tour,
2016-2017;
(c) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
think fit in the interest of justice and equity."
3. The writ petitioners are private tour operators (PTOs) who
are sending pilgrims for Hajj. According to them, they are duly registered
and qualified tour operators who have so far undertaken several tours
for Hajj successfully in the past and there is nothing against any of
them, which may debar them from undertaking tlte similar tour this
year also which is essentially a tour for the benefit of pilgrims go fog for
Hajj.
4. It appears from the reading of the writ petitions that these writ
petitioners have a grievance based on some kind of apprehension that
their applications, if made or those which are pending with the authorities
for grant of permission to undertake Hajj Yatra for the current year
D
E
F
G
H
770
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2016] 2 S.C.R .
..
2016, are likely to be rejected or would be rejected thereby making
their apprehension a reality and grievance infructuous. It is essentially
with this kind of apprehension asserted in the writ petitions, these
writ petitions are filed for grant of aforementioned reliefs.
5. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the respondent-Union of India at the very outset fairly
made a statement that so far no decision has been taken on any of
the applications made by these PTOs (writ petitioners) by the
authorities. Learned counsel also stated that let each writ petitioner
make a fresh application for grant of permission with necessary details
and documents as prescribed latest by 27.05.2016 to the concerned
authorities and each such application once made would be examined,
considered and decided in accordance with law on its individual merits
by the authorities concerned and reasoned order would be passed on
each such application latest by 29.06.2016 under intimation to each
applicant.
6. Though learned counsel for the writ petitioners and learned
Additional Solicitor General argued the matter with reference to previous
orders passed by this Court on the issues sought to be raised, we are
not inclined to go into any of these questions because as mentioned
above, it is not necessary to go into it at all in the light of the statement
made by the learned Additional Solicitor General. We, therefore, express
no opinion on any of the issues.
7. Learned counsel appearing in three writ petitions namely
Writ Petition Nos. 262, 263 and 364 of2016, however, made attempt to
urge that the cases of these three writ petitions involve some different
point. We have heard the learned counsel and find that at this stage
it is not necessary to go into the merits of writ petitions.
8. ln the light of aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the
statement made by the Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the
respondent-Union of India, we dispose of these writ petitions finally
G
by granting I iberty to each writ petitioner to make a fresh application
with all the necessary details with the documents as prescribed for
grant of permission to take the pilgrims for Hajj for the year 2016 on .
or before 27.05.2016 to the prescribed authority.
H
9. On such application(s) being made, the concerned authority
would examine, consider and decide each such application on its merit
SUBHAN TOURS & TRAVEL SERVICES v. UNION OF
INDIA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
· strictly in accordance with law and keeping in view the law laid down in
the decisions of this Court in Union oflndia & Ors. vs. Rafique Shaikh
Bhikan & Ors., 2013 (4) SCC 699, Order dated 07.0~.2014 passed in
Special Leave Petition (c) No. 20743/2014 entitled Union of India &
Ors. vs. All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizers Association & Ors.,
Order dated 07.08.2014 passed in Writ Petition (civil) No. 480/2014
etc.etc. entitled Jeddah Travels & Jeddah Hajj Group vs. Union of
India, Order dated 12.05.2015 passed in I.A. No. 33 of2015 in Special
Leave Petition (c) No. 28609/2011 entitled Union oflndia vs. Rafique
Sheikh Bhikan and others and Order dated 23.07.2015 in W.P.(civil)
No. 344/2015 entitled Alban Hajj Umrah Service vs. Union oflndia.
10. Let the applications be decided by the concerned authority by
passing a reasoned order on each application on or before 29.06.2016
and the order so passed be communicated to each applicant (writ
petitioner) immediately.
11. The writ petitions are disposed of.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Petitions disposed of.
771
A
B
c
D