UNITED AIR TRAVEL SERVICES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR A.D.M. ANWAR KHAN vs UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS THROUGH SECRETARY — W.P.(C) No. 631/2016
Case under Section X. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010257842016
Filing Date
02-Aug-2016
Registration No
W.P.(C) No. 631/2016
Diary Number
25784/2016
Order Date
07-May-2018
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2018 INSC 453
Disposal Type
Allowed
Last updated 28-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.UNITED AIR TRAVEL SERVICES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR A.D.M. ANWAR KHAN
Adv. SAYID MARZOOK BAFAKI
Respondent(s)
-
1.UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS THROUGH SECRETARY
Adv. B. KRISHNA PRASAD
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-May-2018
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-May-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-May-2018
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
-
24-Apr-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Apr-2018
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
-
11-Apr-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Apr-2018
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
-
27-Mar-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Mar-2018
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
-
20-Feb-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Feb-2018
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
-
30-Jan-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Jan-2018
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
-
13-Dec-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Dec-2017
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
-
05-Dec-2017
Administrative Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
-
27-Jul-2017
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
-
24-May-2017
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
-
15-May-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-May-2017
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-May-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-May-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Apr-2017
Office ReportView PDF
-
25-Apr-2017
Office ReportView PDF
-
24-Apr-2017
ROPView PDF
-
24-Apr-2017
ROPView PDF
-
21-Apr-2017
ROPView PDF
-
21-Apr-2017
ROPView PDF
-
21-Apr-2017
Office ReportView PDF
-
21-Apr-2017
Office ReportView PDF
-
21-Apr-2017
Office ReportView PDF
-
21-Apr-2017
ROPView PDF
-
21-Apr-2017
ROPView PDF
-
13-Apr-2017
ROPView PDF
-
13-Apr-2017
Office ReportView PDF
-
13-Apr-2017
ROPView PDF
-
27-Mar-2017
ROPView PDF
-
27-Mar-2017
Office ReportView PDF
-
27-Mar-2017
ROPView PDF
-
20-Mar-2017
ROPView PDF
-
20-Mar-2017
Office ReportView PDF
-
20-Mar-2017
ROPView PDF
-
10-Feb-2017
ROPView PDF
-
10-Feb-2017
Office ReportView PDF
-
10-Feb-2017
ROPView PDF
-
23-Jan-2017
ROPView PDF
-
23-Jan-2017
Office ReportView PDF
-
23-Jan-2017
ROPView PDF
-
09-Dec-2016
Office ReportView PDF
-
24-Nov-2016
ROPView PDF
-
24-Nov-2016
ROPView PDF
-
14-Sep-2016
ROPView PDF
-
14-Sep-2016
Office ReportView PDF
-
14-Sep-2016
ROPView PDF
-
02-Aug-2016
Case filed
Registration No. W.P.(C) No. 631/2016
-
[ 2018 INSC 453 ]
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
Case Summary: United Air Travel Services v. Union of India Decision: The Supreme Court quashed the Ministry of External Affairs' rejection letters (dated 27.7.2016) denying Hajj 2016 registration to private tour operators, finding the rejections arbitrary and illegal. The court awarded Rs. 5 lakh compensation per petitioner for losses caused by the unlawful denial of quota allocation, with costs of Rs. 10,000 per petition. Key Reasoning: The petitioners had qualified for Hajj 2015 but were unsuccessful in the draw of lots, entitling them under policy to automatic allocation without draw (Qurrah) for 2016 with exemption from certain compliance clauses. The rejection citing non-compliance with those very exempted clauses was patently arbitrary—grounds that explicitly did not apply to the petitioners were used against them, violating Article 14 principles and constituting grounds for public law damages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts