Delhi High Court: In the petition challenging the order dated 24-04-2024 passed by the Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition challenging the respondent-Ministry blacklisting the appellant from registration and allocation of Haj Quota or to operate as a Haj Group Operator (‘HGO’) for a period of ten years, was dismissed, the Division Bench of Manmohan*, ACJ., and Rajnish Bhatnagar, J., held that the punishment was not disproportionate to the impropriety. Since the breach was of serious nature, the impugned punishment calls for no interference.
In the instant case, the appellant was engaged in providing services related to Haj pilgrimage. The respondent Ministry vide order 16-03-2023 had blacklisted/debarred the appellant from registration and allocation of Haj Quota or to operate as a HGO for a period of ten years and forfeited the security deposit of Rs.25 lakhs made by the appellant.
The reason for blacklisting was that the actions of the appellant were in violation of “Policy for Haj Group Operators for Haj 2019-23” as he had indulged in selling/transfer of Haj Quota seats. The appellant did a verbal agreement with the complainant only for ‘Land Package’ which included providing only ancillary services (covering stay, transport, food, laundry, ziyarat and zamzam services) to the pilgrims in Saudi Arabia, excluding the Haj Visas.
The appellant further stated that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was given clean chit in the complaint made by the complainant before the police authorities, and all of these actions were only blackmailing tactics of the complainant.
The Court after perusal of the contentions agreed with the view of the Single Judge that the appellant should have not engaged itself in any kind of activity related to Haj (including ancillary services) without being registered as an HGO.
The registered HGO should provide services and facilities to the Hajis, as all the affairs are overseen by the Union of India. A clean chit by the Police, in the present case, was of no relevance to blacklisting proceeding.
The Court agreed with the view of the Single Judge that the punishment imposed was not disproportionate to the impropriety. Later the Court stated that the breach present was of the serious nature, the impugned punishment needs no interference.
[AL Islam Tours Corpn. v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4219, decided on: 31-05-2024]
*Judgement Authored by: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Sulaiman Mohd. Khan with Taiba Khan, Bhanu Malhotra, Gopeshwar Singh Chandel, Abdul Bari Khan and M.N.A. Chaudhary, Advocates.
For Respondents: Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Abhigyan Siddhant, Advocate for UOI.
