IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 23635 of 2007(L)
1. ALASSANKUTTY HAJE, S/O. BEERANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
2. KUNHAVARU, S/O. ALASSANKUTTY HAJE,
3. SIDHIK, S/O. POCKER, AGED 35 YEARS,
4. MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O. MOIDEEN,
5. BIYYAKUTTY, W/O. MOIDEENKUTTY K.M.,
Vs
1. KERALA HAJ COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE HAJ COMMITTEE OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
For Respondent :SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/09/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J
==================
W.P.(C)No.23635 of 2007
===================
Dated this the 24th day of September 2007
JUDGMENT
The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the first
respondent to include the petitioners in the select list for Hajj
Pilgrimage for this year.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they should
be excluded from draw of lots by which pilgrims are chosen. It
is submitted that the first petitioner is aged 93 years and is
entitled to have two companions who are petitioners No.2 and 5.
Therefore, it is submitted that these three persons should be
excluded from draw of lots. Similarly, in so far as third
petitioner is concerned it is submitted that he was in the waiting
list for the previous year and therefore he is entitled to similar
exclusion. In so far as fourth petitioner is concerned he is over
70 years of age and is also entitled to exemption, submits the
learned counsel for the writ petitioner.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first
W.P.(C).No.23635/2007
:2:
respondent in which it is stated that the Kerala State Hajj
Committee had formulated guidelines in their meeting held on
8.7.2007 to select applications. It is stated that out of 20,551
applications, only 7,670 of them were eligible to include in the
selected list. As regards the draw of lots, it is stated in Para 3 of
the statement as follows:
“Regarding the allegations raised by the petitioner in Para
4 it is submitted that the benefit of age above 75 years is
granted only if the cover contain 3 persons. In this connection it
is submitted that the Kerala State Haj Committee decided to
include covers containing applications in which the 50% or
above are above 70, without lot. In cover number KL-515-5
there are only 2 persons who are above 70 years and hence
cannot be benefited under the clause. Regarding waiting list
2006-II it is submitted that the Kerala State Haj Committee had
decided to include the Haj applicants who were in the 2006-II in
the quota allotted for Haj 2007 without lot if and only if the
persons in the waiting list 2006-II and in the new applicants
were one and the same. If any persons was included afresh
along with their cover the benefit given by Kerala State Haj
Committee will be lost. Here along with the 3rd petitioner 4 new
W.P.(C).No.23635/2007
:3:persons were added in the cover and hence cannot be given the
benefit. The petitioners is in no way can be included in the
selection list of Haj 2007 without lot.”
4. From this it is evident that guidelines had been
framed by the committee and that has been uniformly followed
even if the guidelines were framed after they made their
applications will not render the guideline invalid. Petitioners do
not contend that the method followed was not transparent or
that they have been discriminated in this matter in any manner.
Petitioners also do not have a complaint of malafidies or that
anybody has been included the select list overlooking their
claims. In this circumstances, I do not find any merits in this
writ petition and this writ petition is dismissed.
Needless to state that if there are any vacancies,
respondents would certainly consider the case of the petitioners
subject to the case also.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
dvs