SHAMEENA RASHEED Vs. HAJ COMMITTEE OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in the writ petition are the appellants. Writ petition is filed inter alia for a declaration that the stipulation in clause 9(B)(i) in Ext.P1 is not applicable to Mehram accompanying the women applicants who have not performed Haj in life time and for consequential reliefs including consideration of the application of petitioners 1 to 3 along with Ext.P5 application of the Mehram.

(2.) THE facts involved in the case disclose that petitioners applied to the 2nd respondent for performing Haj ritual in the year 2012. Since the petitioners were women, they had to be accompanied by a male member who is a close relative, termed as Mehram. They submitted their applications along with the application of the husband of the 1st petitioner Sri.Abdul Rasheed as the Mehram. Sri.Abdul Rasheed had performed Haj in the year 2004. As per the Guidelines of the 2nd respondent Haj Committee, which is produced as Ext.P1 and the Guidelines for the Haj of 2012 published by Haj Committee of India, Ext.R2(a), certain reservations are provided to certain category of persons. Since Ext.P1 is published based on Ext.R2(a), it is better to refer to the Guidelines specified in Ext.R2(a) (hereinafter referred as the 'Guidelines'). As per Clause 7 of the Guidelines, pilgrims of 70 years and above will be registered under the reserved category (a). Fourth time applicants who had submitted their applications continuously for the last three years during Haj 2009, 2010 and 2011 and whose applications have been rejected come under Reserved Category (b).

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioners that their applications ought to have been considered under the reserved category (b) since they complied with all the requirements.