Kul-Hind Tanzeem Khuddamul ... vs Uoi And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 53 Del

JUDGMENT

Usha Mehra, J.

1. The main grievance of the petitioner as indicated in the petition are that the "Haj Committee" has siphoned away considerable amount which was to go for subsidies for air-tickets and that return air ticket to Jeddah is charged exorbitantly by the "Haj Committee". That "Haj Committee" hires building In Mecca and Madlna at exorbitant rate. That exchange rate charged by the "Haj Committee" are on higher rates than actual. Further, that the Hajjls who came directly to India from Madina without going to Jeddah have been made to pay for the journey from Madina to Jeddah. These were primary grievances and allegations of the petitioner in the writ petition. Since these allegations related to the corrupt management of the "Haj Committee" hence the petition was treated as a public interest litigation. Notice of the same was issued to the UOI as well as other respondents. UOI filed reply to the petition denying the allegations. It is stated that so far as providing of subsidy for air tickets, it is released directly to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and not routed through the "Haj Committee". That so far as return air tickets to Jeddah is concerned, the rates of Rs. 20.500/-is meant for excursion fare, which is not available during Haj and therefore it has no bearing to airlines ticket price during the time of the Haj. Moreover, the planes were made to come back empty after leaving Hajjis as the destination. Similarly in order to pick up the Hajjis empty planes were sent from India to bring back the Hajjis. Keeping these factors in view the fare of the tickets become little costly. Moreover seasonal variation in air fare is a part of common trade practices in the Industry. As regard hiring of building the process is completely transparent, it is done through public advertisement. Large number of pilgrims have to be accommodated therefore, negotiations begins much in advance. The rates are paid as per the prevalent market rates then prevailing otherwise it would become difficult while sitting In India to arrange for the accommodation at the eleventh hour. Since the arrangement has to be made in advance, therefore variations in the hiring or the rent rates paid for the buildings have to be different because of rush of pilgrims. So far as the exchange rates are concerned, it is the case of the UOI that the exchange rates fixed by the "Haj Committee" are on the basis of negotiation held with banks and on State Bank of India Certificate. SBI reports indicate that during the period of Haj the exchange rates are invariably higher than the normal rates. In the previous year as well as in the present year, the Hajjis who directly came to India from Madina and had not gone to Jeddah were reimbursed the cost for the journey they did not perform. That the extra amount charged will be refunded.

2. Mr. Sanjay Jain counsel for the UOI has brought to our notice that the Haj Committee Act, 2002 has been passed and came into force with effect from 6th December, 2002. He also drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anjuman Khuddamul Hujjaj and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. WP(C) No. 584 of 1998 decided on 9th May, 2000 in which the Apex Court observed that till the new Act or Ordinance is brought out and new and appropriate arrangements are made under the Act/Ordinance for the Haj pilgrimage, the Foreign Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs will control, supervise and oversee the performance of the present "Haj Committee" and it will be In his discretion to nominate, in place of members indicated in Section 4(1)(a) to (f), such persons/of merit and high integrity as would be useful in the proper management of Haj affairs on the Committee, so that the "Haj pilgrims do not suffer for lack of adequate arrangements. Mr. Jain says that the Act has already came into force and the process to appoint new Committee will be taken shortly. Therefore, till such time, the new Committee is formed, the committee so appointed by the Foreign Secretary is performing the functions as indicated by the Supreme Court under the supervision and control of the Foreign Secretary. Therefore, if the petitioners have any grievance, they can approach the Foreign Secretary or wait for the new Committee which is going to be formed very shortly and latest by March, 2003.

3. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings of the parties and the issues raised, we find it difficult to hold that the "Haj Committee" siphoned away the money on account of the subsides for the air-tickets. As per the affidavit of the UOI, the Hajjls pay Rs. 12,000/- and the subsidy paid by the Govt. is directly released to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, therefore there can't be any question of siphoning away the money by the "Haj Committee". Similarly, costing of air tickets is based on various factors which have already been indicated above and, therefore, it is difficult to appreciate that the "Haj Committee" is charging excess amount from the Hajjis for the air tickets. So far as the question of paying exorbitant rates for hiring buildings in Mecca and Madina the allegations in view of the explanation given by UOI does not appears to be justified, in view of the submissions made by the UOI that arrangement for the accommodation has to be made much in advance, therefore, the rates then prevailing have to be paid otherwise sitting in India the "Haj Committee" cannot afford to wait till the last moment to make arrangements for such a large number of Hajjis going for the pilgrimage appears to be reasonable. So far as the allegation of charging excess exchange rates is concerned, it has been explained that these are as per the SBI report and the Certificate. The Govt. of India in its affidavit has already indicated that any amount charges in excess from the Hajjis on account of their not being performing the journey to Jeddah has either been refunded or will be refunded. In view of this, we find no merits in the allegations of the petitioner nor find any ground to give further direction in this matter. The petition is accordingly dismissed.