Recently, the division bench of the Bombay Hig Court comprising Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and YG Khobragade directs Haj Committee of India to implement its guidelines and announce the fares in advance.

The said orders were passed to enable the pilgrims to choose the nearest economical embarkation point (EP).

During the haring, the Bench 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.

Further, the Court 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”.

In this matter, 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 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 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 rejects the writ petitions.

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. 

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