The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned till Wednesday the daylong hearing of 17 identical petitions for setting aside the Lahore High Court (LHC) verdict against distribution of quota under Hajj Policy 2011. A four-member special bench comprising Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Mian Shahirullah Jan, Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain was hearing the petitions.
The bench was told that shortage of time was hindering implementation of the LHC judgement, so the verdict may be set aside. However, the bench observed that final decision in the appeals would be delivered after hearing all counsel of the case. As many as 17 petitions were filed on June 6 under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution to appeal in the Supreme Court against the LHC's decision for new private Hajj operators on the basis of merit. Federation's counsel Dr Babar Awan resumed his arguments and said that the objective of agreement on Hajj Policy with Saudi Arabia was to make the policy transparent.
Advocates Aitazaz Ahsan and Ikram Chaudhry delivered arguments against LHC judgement, whereas Azhar Siddique defended the verdict. Awan contended that Hajj arrangements were to be completed before Shaban but were in doldrums due to the LHC verdict, and added that the LHC judgement on Hajj quota was not implementable due to shortage of time.
With a request to set aside the LHC verdict, Awan said that the present government did not allotted Hajj and Umrah quota to any new operator, whereas previous regime had allotted the quota to the registered tour operators only. He added that the quota was given to the private sector during 2006 for provision of best facilities to the pilgrims. He informed the bench that the government of Pakistan entered into agreement with Saudi Arabia pertaining to Hajj and Umrah arrangements.
He added that substantial number of pilgrims had deposited their Hajj expenses in the Zia-ul-Haq Foundation account in 2005. Representing 204 Hajj Group Operators (HGOs), Ikram Chaudhary said that his clients had quota of 25900 pilgrims and they had spent more than Rs 5 billion to arrange for their residences and other facilities under the Hajj Policy 2011. He contended that LHC verdict has badly affected the interest of 90,000 pilgrims as well as 726 registered HGOs. He said the appellants have no objection to register new tour operators but it was a matter of concern for his clients that they were accommodated in the less experienced operators lap.
Ikram said that the LHC has not catered his client as important party of the case, and added that Articles 18 and 25 of the constitution of Pakistan were not applicable in the case; so LHC verdict may be set aside. Aitzaz said that there was no issue of registration for tour operators in 2005 because the apex court had allotted them quota in 2007, adding that substantial amount was invested by the appellants in terms of providing facilities to the intending pilgrims; so it was their legal right to have quota allotment. He further argued that his clients were not given quota in 2009-10 and their quotas were also cancelled in 2011.
Justice Javed Iqbal inquired from the counsel whether LHC has spelled out that quota may be cancelled, upon which Aitzaz told the bench that new applications for quota allocation were invited which was not possible at present. Defending the LHC judgement, Advocate Azhar Siddique said that in 2006 the quota was allotted against heavy gains, adding that business of tours operators was second largest profitable venture after drug trafficking.
The bench asked him to remain to the point within the ambit of the appeal. Siddique said that Federation counsel in the case was misleading the court because there was no agreement of Pakistan government with KSA which has been referred in the case. However, he said, these were minutes of a meeting with an individual of the KSA.
Siddique informed the bench that in 2005 Zain Foundation and Zia-ul-Haq Foundation were allotted pilgrims quota which was still in vogue. Azhar prayed that quota must be allotted under the LHC judgement because it emphasised meeting merit, adding that quota holders (appellants of the case) were avoiding intervention of the relevant authority so they were praying to set aside the LHC judgement. The court adjourned hearing till Wednesday.
Comments
Comments are closed.