Bombay High Court Asks Haj Committee To Announce Fares Before Pilgrims Choose Embarkation Point

The Bombay High Court asked that the Haj Committee of India (HCoI) to implement its guidelines and announce the fares in advance to enable the pilgrims to choose the nearest economical embarkation point (EP), in a batch of writ petitions filed by 180 Haj pilgrims concerning fares for Aurangabad EP for the Haj Pilgrimage, 2023.

A division bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and YG Khobragade sitting at Aurangabad noted that the EP charges for Mumbai was Rs. 53,043/- while for Aurangabad, it was 1,40,938/- for Haj Pilgrimage-2023.

“If the said guideline is read in continuity…the pilgrims would be given an option to choose the nearest economical EP. Had these rates been announced prior to the locking of choice of EP, the pilgrims could have chosen Mumbai instead of Aurangabad and could have saved around Rs.88000/- per pilgrim”, the court observed.

The court however, refused to order refund to Haj pilgrims who chose Aurangabad as their EP and couldn’t change it after rates were announced holding that it did not have the expertise to decide whether the fare for Aurangabad EP was “exorbitantly high”.

The pilgrims had to select an EP from 21 available EPs across India. The petitioners belong to the Marathwada region, and their closest EP option was Aurangabad, followed by Mumbai. The guidelines were issued by HCoI on February 10, 2023.

The pilgrims were required to lock their EP preferences through the online application form. They were further asked to deposit the first instalment of Rs. 81,800/- by April 14, 2023, and the second instalment of Rs. 1,70,000/- by May 15, 2023. The Haj flights commenced from May 21, 2023.

The petitioners contended that they were made to believe, based on the HCoI guidelines, that the charges for the Haj Pilgrimage-2023 would be lower than those for the Haj Pilgrimage-2022. However, while the charges were lower for Mumbai EP, they were significantly higher for Aurangabad EP. The pilgrims were not given an option to change their EP preference after the rates were declared. The Petitioners argued that the air fares should have been announced by the HCoI prior to the locking of EP options by the pilgrims.

The centre submitted that it took all possible steps to ensure the best arrangements for the pilgrims. The airfares are exceptionally high this year due to an acute shortage of aircrafts globally, the centre said in an affidavit. Further, airfares of non-metro cities are generally high in comparison to the metro cities, and the Government exercises limited control over prices.

The court noted that the guidelines for the Haj Pilgrimage-2023 allowed pilgrims to opt for two EPs in order of priority, "preferably the nearest economical EP", which was not extended to the petitioners. The pilgrims had to lock their preference for Aurangabad EP before the declaration of EP charges, and as a result, they were unable to shift their preference to the Mumbai EP, which was more economical, the court noted.

However, the court noted that the air fares have already been paid by the petitioners to the Haj Committee and transferred to the concerned air carriers based on the guidelines for calculating air fares through competitive bidding. The court said that it lacks the expertise to re-calculate the air fares/EP charges to determine if the rates are exorbitantly high. Thus, the court rejected the petitioners' prayer that Aurangabad EP charges should be at par with Mumbai EP charges.

The court suggested the HCoI to consider implementing the guidelines that allowed pilgrims to prefer the nearest economical EP.

“we are suggesting to the HCoI, to apply it’s mind and implement the guidelines…and consider annoucement of the EP fare in advance so as to enable the pilgrims to make a choice in terms of the said guidelines ie. ‘prefer the nearest economical EP’ and if this is not possible in view of the business constraints or commercial constraints, at least, allow them to choose one of the two EPs that they are entitled to mention in the online application form so as to prefer the nearest economical EP”, the court stated.

The court disposed of the writ petitions with this suggestion. The petitioners requested permission for a joint representation to the HCoI for a pro-rata refund, as they could not afford the excess amount, and could have travelled by trains or buses to Mumbai after opting for Mumbai EP. The court refrained from making any observations on this matter, leaving it to the HCoI to consider the representation in line with its guidelines.

Case no. – Rubeena Shaheen v. Haj Committee of India and Ors. with connected cases

Case Title – Writ Petition No. 5436 of 2023