Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioners challenging the orders passed by the Ministry of Minority Affairs whereby the petitioners are blacklisted from applying for registration as Haj Group Organizers, for periods ranging from 5 to 15 years, effective from Haj, 2024 along with forfeiture of the security deposits submitted by the Petitioners for Haj, 2023. Sanjeev Narula, J., sets aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to provide the petitioners with an opportunity to present their defense specifically with respect to the proposed blacklisting or debarment because in the absence of specific details of the provisions in the show cause notices about the proposed action of blacklisting or debarment, the petitioners were denied a fair opportunity to mount a proper defense against such severe punitive measures, including blacklisting/debarment and the forfeiture of their security deposits.
The petitioners, Haj Group Organizers (HGOs), were engaged in facilitating pilgrimage journeys to Saudi Arabia for Haj and Umrah. Under a bilateral agreement, the Saudi Government allocates a fixed number of seats to India, which are distributed among registered HGOs by the Indian government. The petitioners were granted registration and quota for Haj 2023 on 16-05-23. However, on 26-05-23, they were served with show cause notices following allegations of cartelization and black-marketing. Despite denying the charges, the petitioners filed a writ petition, and on 07-06-23, the Delhi High Court allowed them to proceed with Haj operations. The Union of India challenged this in the Supreme Court, but the challenge was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioners were blacklisted and debarred from future Haj operations, starting from 2024, and their security deposits were forfeited for violating the Haj Group Organizers Policy 2023, prompting the present petitions.
Counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned orders primarily on the grounds that the show cause notices issued were legally defective as it failed to explicitly mention that the penalties being considered included debarment, blacklisting, or forfeiture of security deposits, depriving the petitioners of a fair opportunity to defend themselves against these severe consequences. The notices merely stated that necessary action would be taken if the petitioners did not respond within three days, without specifying the nature or extent of the penalties. The Counsel cited Supreme Court rulings in Vet India Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 1 SCC 804 and Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2014) 9 SCC 105, contending that principles of natural justice were violated, as the petitioners were not adequately informed of the punitive actions contemplated.
Counsel for respondent strongly defended the show cause notices and argued that the notices were sufficiently clear, as they outlined the violations committed by the petitioners and warned that failure to comply with the Haj Policy 2023 would result in appropriate action. It was submitted that Haj Policy 2023 explicitly provides for blacklisting in cases of policy violations, and the petitioners were therefore aware of the potential consequences of their actions.
The Court noted that upon perusal of the show cause notice, it becomes evident that the notices issued to the Petitioners fall short of the requisite legal threshold that must be met before taking such a drastic action as blacklisting or debarment. The fundamental principle of natural justice necessitates that the notice must explicitly mention the proposed action of blacklisting/debarment, giving the recipient a clear opportunity to respond adequately to such a serious consequence. Failure to specify this action leaves the notice deficient and vitiates the basis for the subsequent blacklisting/debarment orders.
The Court observed that its reasoning in Vet India Pharmaceuticals Limited and Gorkha Security Services (supra) emphasized that the failure to provide an explicit notice of blacklisting as a potential penalty constitutes a fundamental violation of principles of natural justice because blacklisting has far reaching consequences that go beyond the immediate issue, often leading to a civil death for the organization in question. The judgment also states that merely mentioning that an action shall follow in furtherance of the tender conditions, which provided for the possibility of debarment, does not satisfy the principles of natural justice.
The Court concluded that, in the present case, the respondent’s reliance on vague language in the show cause notices, without clearly indicating that blacklisting or debarment was under consideration, mirrors the situation in Vet India Pharmaceuticals Limited (supra). This failure to explicitly state the proposed action renders the impugned orders legally unsustainable and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the respondent’s argument that mere reference to violations of the Haj Policy, 2023 in the show cause notices is sufficient to imply the possibility of blacklisting or debarment, lacks merit.
Keeping in mind that the notification for Registration and Allocation of Haj Quota for Haj-2025 has been announced, the Court directed as follows:
-
The impugned orders in all the petitions are set aside;
-
The respondent Ministry is directed to issue fresh show cause notices within one week from today delineating the clauses the Haj Policy, 2023 which are being violated and the proposed actions;
-
The petitioners shall be permitted to file a response thereto within a period of one week from the date of the receipt of the notices;
-
Upon receiving the petitioners’ responses, the respondent shall consider them thoroughly.
[Benzy Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6550, decided on 18-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: Mr. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Ms. Taiba Khan, Mr. Bhanu Malhotra, Mr. Gopeshwar Singh Chandel, Mr. Abdul Bari Khan, and Ms. Aditi Chaudhary, Advocates in Item Nos. 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81 & 83
For Respondents: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC for R-1 with Ms. Ira Singh, Advocate, and Ms. Rashi Mangal, GP in Item Nos. 66 & 67
Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Kaushal Jeet Kait, Ms. Hridyanshi Sharma, Advocates, and Mr. Ankur Yadav, DSC, and Mr. Abhishek (YP) Legal in Item Nos. 68, 73, and 83
Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Mr. Jatin Teotia, Mr. Samarth Talesara, and Ms. Aishani Mohan, Advocates in Item No. 70
Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj and Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, Advocates for UOI in Item Nos. 70 to 74
Mr. Syed A. Haseeb, SPC with Mr. Hilaq Haidar, GP in Item No. 72
Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, SPC, Ms. Supriya, and Mr. Rajat Srivastava, Advocates, and Ms. Archana Kumari, GP in Item No. 74
Ms. Iram Majid, CGSC with Mohd. Suboor, Advocate, in Item No. 75 with Mr. Hilaq Haidar, GP
Mr. Farman Ali, SPC with Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, GP in Item No. 76
Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Ms. Ira Singh, Advocate in Item No. 77
Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, SPC with Mr. Hussain Adil Taqvi, GP in Item No. 78
Mr. Anshuman Singh, SPC with Mr. Vidur Dewivedi, GP in Item No. 79
Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Rishav Dubey, GP, Mr. Ujjwal Chaudhary, and Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocates in Item No. 80
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate, in Item No. 81 with Ms. Archana Kumari, GP
Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Ms. Ira Singh, Advocate in Item No. 82
