SHC dismisses petition disputing reduction of hajj quota

Court told it is govt’s prerogative to distribute quota between public, private sectors

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed the hajj operators’ application for an injunction against reduction of hajj pilgrims’ quota from 50 per cent to 40 per cent.

The SHC’s single bench headed by Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar said the hajj quota was granted to Pakistan and not to an individual or the hajj operators so that they could dictate their terms to the government.

The court said it was the right of the government to frame au fait, equitable and even-handed hajj policy for just utilisation of the quota in view of the directives contained in the Dossani case.

The SHC added that the perception and discernment “to haves and have-nots” was not a new phenomenon but a ground reality.

The bench said the government’s hajj scheme was introduced to cater to the needs of the people so that they could perform the sacred obligation with the benefit of a low-cost package.

The court added that it was not possible for the populace to afford expensive hajj packages introduced by the hajj operators for the elite class. “Even the lowermost or minimum package of the hajj operators doesn’t match up with the government’s hajj package.”

The SHC said the hajj operators could not claim that their 50 per cent quota could not be reduced nor any case of promissory estoppel was made out on the basis of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the government.

Justice Mazhar said the federal law officer had informed the court that there were consistent demands of the people for increasing the quota in the government scheme and relevant resolutions were passed with majority votes by the Punjab, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assemblies to accommodate more intending pilgrims from low-income groups.

He said that it was a well-entrenched and deep-rooted principle of judicial review of administrative action that in the absence of some un-rebuttable material on record qua mala fides, the court would not annul the order of the executive authority, which otherwise did not reflect any illegality or jurisdictional defect.

“Neither have I found out or detected nor could the learned counsel depict or bring to light any mala fide intention at the back of reduction in quota.”

The hajj operators’ counsel had argued that the reduction in quota amounted to violation and contravention of the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution.

He said the rights of the hajj operators were fully protected under the MoU signed on July 4, 2013, which had been upheld by the apex court, adding that through the MoU, vested rights had been created in favour of the plaintiffs, which could not be taken away.

The federal law officer argued that the Ministry of Religious Affairs was duty-bound to manage pilgrimage and that planning, management and operation of the pilgrimage was regulated every year through the hajj policy approved by the Federal Cabinet and the prime minister.

He said the current policy was framed by the committee constituted by the Supreme Court and the hajj quota allocated to Pakistan was not in the name of the plaintiffs but was the prerogative of the government to distribute it between the public and private sectors.

He added that as far as the MoU was concerned, it had concluded in 2013 and its operation was honoured by the religious affairs ministry in 2014, adding that the plaintiffs could not claim allocation of hajj quota as their right.