IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
 
 
Criminal Original Petition Nos.59 of 2015, 65, 66, 67, 68, 84, 92, 
93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 104, 112, 113, 140, 
227 and 233 of 2016, 50, 89, 88, 87, 86, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 
75, 76, 77, 78 and 79 of 2017, Crl.M.A. Nos. 752, 863, 909, 910, 
918, 862, 911, 912, 973, 974, 891, 892, 1003, 1004, 1021, 
1112, 1028, 1044, 1179, 1360, 1424, 1627, 1263, 1717, 1995, 
1300, 1303, 1783, 1784,  of 2016, 44, 65, 66, 653, 620, 621, 
622, 573, 574, 575. 643, 645, 661, 662, 685, 686, 687, 688, 
689, 691, 698, 699 and 700 of 2017 AND C.M.Appeal No.126 of 
2016 in Const.P.No.Nil of 2016, C.M.Appeal No.159 of 2016 in 
Const.P.No.Nil of 2016 and C.M.Appeal No.162 of 2016 in 
Const.P.No.Nil of 2016.  
(For non-compliance of the judgments of this Court dated 27.8.2013 
and 21.7.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No.800-L of 2013 etc. and CP 
Nos.1270 of 2014 etc. respectively)  
 
Muhammad Arif Idress & others 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
Sohail Aamir and others. 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the petitioner(s)/: 
Applicants 
Mr. Azhar Siddique, ASC 
Mr. M.Ozair Chughtai, AOR (absent) 
(In Cr.O.P.59/16, Crl.M.A.1003, 1004, 1044, 
1179, 1360, 1627 of 2016 and 645 of 2017) 
 
Sardar Muhammad Aslam, ASC 
Mr. Anmed Nawaz Chaudhry, AOR 
(In Cr.O.P.66/16 & Crl.M.A.1995 of 2016) 
 
Mr. M. Shahnawaz Sikandari, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood A.Sheikh, AOR 
(In Crl.M.A.918, 93, 1112 of 2016) 
 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(In Cr.O.P.67 & 92 of 2016) 
 
Kazi Sheheryar Iqbal, ASC 
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Chaudhry, AOR 
(In Cr.O.P.68, 84, 98, 100, 112 of 2016, 88, 
68, 70, 71 & 78 of 2017) 
 
Mr. Nazir Ahmed Bhutta, ASC 
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Chaudhry, AOR. 
(In Crl.M.A.863, 909, 1717 of 2016 and 689 of 2017) 
 
Mr. Abdul Wahid Ch., ASC 
Mian Ghulam Hussain, AOR (absent) 
(In Crl.M.A.974 of 2016) 
 
-: 2 :-
Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(In Cr.O.P.97 & 99 of 2016) 
 
Raja Muqsit Nawaz Khan, ASC 
Ch.Akhtar Ali, AOR. 
(In Cr.O.P.140/16 & 86/17) 
 
Mr. M. Habibullah Khan, ASC 
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Chaudhry, AOR. 
(In Cr.O.P.87/17) 
 
Mr. Masood Ahmad Zafar, ASC 
Ch.Akhtar Ali, AOR. 
(In Crl.M.A.643 of 2017) 
 
Mr. Ali Zafar, ASC 
Mr. Zahid Nawaz Cheema, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
(In Cr.O.P.65/16, Crl.M.A.65 and 66 of 2017) 
 
Mr. Aftab Bajwa, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood A.Sheikh, AOR. 
(In Crl.M.A.661 & 688 of 2017) 
 
Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
(In Cr.O.P.227/16, 50, 79 of 2017,  Crl.M.A.662, 685, 
687, 699 & 700 of 2017) 
 
Mr. Tahir Munir Malik, ASC 
Ch.Akhtar Ali, AOR 
(In Crl.M.A.1300 of 2016) 
 
Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, ASC 
Ch.Akhtar Ali, AOR. 
(In Crl.M.A.1424 and 1263 of 2016) 
 
Qari Abdul Rasheed, ASC 
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Chaudhry, AOR. 
(In Crl.M.A.1303 of 2016) 
 
Mr. Muhammad Shah Khawar, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood A.Sheikh, AOR. 
(In Cr.O.P.94, 95, 96, 113, 233 of 2016 & 89 of 2017) 
 
Mr. Khan Afzal Khan, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(In Crl.M.A.159 of 2016) 
 
Mr. M. Habib Qureshi, ASC 
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Chaudhry, AOR 
(In Crl.M.A.1303 of 2016) 
 
Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta, ASC 
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Chaudhry, AOR. 
(In Cr.O.P.105/16, Crl.M.A.653, 72, 73, 74, 75, 
76 & 77 of 2017) 
 
Raja M.Farooq, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
(In C.M.Appeal No.126 of 2016) 
 
-: 3 :-
Mr. Abid S.Zuberi, ASC 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR. 
Assisted by Barrister Ayan M.Memon,  
Farhan Shah, Advocates 
(In Crl.M.A.620, 621, 622, 573, 574 & 575 of 2017) 
 
Mr. Aleem Baig Chughtai, ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, AOR.(absent) 
(In Cr.O.P.101/16 & Crl.M.A.910 of 2016) 
 
Kanwar Iqbal Ahmed Khan, ASC 
(In Crl.M.A.862 & 912 of 2016) 
 
Mr. M.Bashir Khan, ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, AOR (absent) 
(In Crl.M.A.891& 892 of 2016) 
 
Mr. Waseem Majid Malik, ASC 
Mr. Mehmoodul Islam, AOR (absent) 
(In Cr.O.P.104/16 & Crl.M.A.1021 of 2016) 
 
Mian Muhammad Aslam, ASC 
Mr. Abdul Majeed Iftikhar Bajwa, AOR. 
(absent) (In Crl.M.A.691 of 2017) 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
(In Crl.M.A.686 of 2017) 
 
Mr. Mehmood A.Sheikh, ASC/AOR. 
(In Crl.M.A.1783, 1784 of 2016 & 44 of 2017) 
 
In person. 
(In Crl.M.A.1028 of 2016) 
 
Nemo. 
(In Crl.M.A.911 & 973 of 2016 and C.M.Appeal 162/16) 
 
For the respondents: 
Mr. Sohail Mehmood, DAG 
Mr.M.S.Khattak, AOR. 
 
For HGO/ 
HOAP 
Mr. Abid S. Zuberi, ASC 
Tariq Aziz, AOR  
Assisted by Barrister Ayan M. Memon 
Farhan Shah, Advocate 
 
Date of hearing: 
21.04.2017 
 
…………..… 
ORDER 
 
 
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.- Through the above Criminal 
Original Petitions, the petitioners have prayed for initiating 
proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic 
of Pakistan, 1973,  read with  Section 3 of the Contempt of Court 
Ordinance, 2003, against the respondents for violating this Court’s 
judgment dated 27.8.2013, rendered in the case of Dossani Travels 
 
-: 4 :-
(Pvt.) Ltd and others v. M/s Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd and others 
(PLD 2014 SC 1), in terms whereof the respondent were, inter alia, 
directed to seek guidance from the following recommendations of the 
Competition Commission of Pakistan in framing the Hajj Policy:- 
 
 
"F. RECOMMENDATIONS 
  
58. Keeping in view the background and the findings, 
MORA may consider the following two sets of 
suggestions. These suggestions, if implemented, can 
address the competition and transparency issues 
that have been raised. The first set of suggestions 
assumes that the MORA continues with the quota 
system in place. The second set of suggestions allow for 
the possibility of free competition within the overall 
quota allocated for the HGO Scheme. 
59. In case MORA wants to continue with the quota 
allocation policy to HGO's it is recommended as follows: 
(a)  
Currently MORA is allocating Hajj quota only 
based on Hajj operations performed. Such 
criteria provide undue advantage to the HGOs 
who have performed maximum number of Hajj 
operations, whereas it places the new entrants 
and the HGOs who have performed lesser 
number of Hajj operations at a Competition 
disadvantage. The allocation of quota should be 
decided, in addition to experience, on various 
qualitative variables which inter alia includes:- 
(i) 
Past performance of Hajj or Umrah or 
Ziyarat Operations, 
(ii) 
Economy of financial packages offered, 
(iii) 
Quality of management and services 
provided, and 
(iv) 
The financial strength of the HGOs. 
Weightage should be allocated to these variables 
in a manner which does not give undue 
consideration to experience only. 
(b) 
MORA shall also allocate a specific percentage 
of Hajj quotas to the new entrants to 
encourage entry of new players in the market 
and such quota may be allocated based on the 
separate criteria. 
(c) 
…………………………………….. 
 
-: 5 :-
(d) 
All the variables mentioned above should be 
evaluated by a third party, preferably a chartered 
accountancy firm approved by ICAP, to ensure 
transparency of the process. 
(e) 
MORA should consider forming a panel, whose 
responsibility will be to monitor all the HGOs. All 
the complaints against the HGOs shall also be 
reviewed by that panel. The recommendations 
and the finding of that panel shall be taken into 
account when allocating the quota to the HGOs. 
The panel shall be completely independent to 
ensure transparency of the process. 
60.  
In the event that MORA would like to consider 
opening up the market for competition, as has been 
done in some other jurisdictions, here are some 
suggestions it should consider. 
(a) 
MORA could enlist/approve/license HGO's that 
meet the criteria as recommended in the 
previous paragraph and then allow them to offer 
services to first come basis to intending pilgrims. 
Such a system would allow the market, most 
importantly the intending pilgrims, to decide 
which HGO they prefer. The enlistment/ license 
could be reviewed based on the feedback received 
from the market. 
(b)  
…………………………… 
(c)  
……………………………  
61. The above recommendations are made in order to 
ensure that the competitiveness and transparency in 
the Hajj Sector is achieved by providing a level playing 
field to all the concerned undertakings.” (emphasis 
supplied) 
 
2. 
 
Through the said judgment this Court also directed that 
the Hajj policy should be framed by a Committee headed by 
Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan 
(MORA), nominee of the Competition Commission of Pakistan, 
nominee of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan, 
nominee of Ministry of Law and Justice Division and Parliamentary 
Affairs and a nominee of Attorney General for Pakistan. It is further 
 
-: 6 :-
directed that the credential of each application/Hajj Group 
Organizer (HGO) should be examined and decision taken on 
merits. (emphasis supplied) 
3. 
 
The petitioner submitted that the various directions as 
contained in the aforesaid judgment, including the foregoing, were, as 
mentioned in the judgment itself, provided so that just, fair, and 
confidence inspiring policy be framed with regard to the Hajj 
arrangements and management. 
4. 
 
The petitioners further submitted that although in 
pursuance of the above judgment the respondent Nos.1 to 7 invited 
Hajj packages from all the HGOs, in response whereof the petitioners 
submitted their respective packages, however, no such package was 
submitted by the members of the Hajj Group Organizers Association 
of Pakistan (HOAP), but still, and in clear violation of the above 
directive of this Court, the respondent, instead of distributing the 
private sector Quota amongst all the HGOs, granted the whole of 
such quota to the members of the HOAP exclusively, thus depriving 
the petitioners of their participation in the Hajj 2017, in clear and 
brazen violation of the above discussed judgment. The respondents 
according to the petitioners are therefore liable to be dealt with in 
accordance with Article 204 of the Constitution and section 3 of the 
Contempt of Court Act. 
5. 
 
On the other hand, Mr.Abid S.Zuberi, learned ASC 
appearing for some of the quota holders HGOs, who along with all 
other quota holders HGOs, are members of HOAP, submitted that 
contrary to the claim of the petitioners the impugned allocation has 
rather been made in pursuance of, and in conformity with, not only 
the dicta of this Court in Dossani Travels’ case (supra), but also in 
conformity with the later judgment in Civil Petition Nos.1270, 1308 
1309 of 2014, CMA No.4094 of 2014, rendered on 21.7.2014 
 
-: 7 :-
(Muhammad Arif Idrees case). Mr. Zuberi further submitted that 
genesis of this matter lies in the Hajj policy for the year 2013, when 
on account of an overall reduction in the number of persons 
permitted to perform Hajj for that year, by 20%, the quota for 
Pakistani Hujjaj was also slashed in the same proportion. The 
reduction was made by the Government of Saudi Arabia on account 
of the ongoing expansion works of Khana Kaaba. The MORA therefore 
was compelled to reduce the quota for the members of the HOAP, 
which was to be 50% of the overall national quota, to 40%, however, 
in order to persuade the members of HOAP for the said reduction, the 
MORA agreed, and promised to provide to HOAP a quota of 12000 
Hujjaj in addition to their original 50% quota, for the Hajj 2014, and 
thus a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between 
MORA and HOAP on 04.7.2013. The MoU reads:- 
 
 
Subject: 
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 
 
 
This Memorandum of Understanding is 
signed between the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Hajj 
Organizers Association of Pakistan (HOAP) for the 
adjustment of Hajj Quota for Hajj 2013 on 4th July 2013 
at Islamabad.  
 
 
Whereas 
both 
parties 
have 
mutually 
agreed and resolved that:- 
(a) 
The current reduced allocation of the quota of 
Private Hajj Group would be increased by 3000 
pilgrims for Hajj 2013 
(b) 
For Hajj 2014, the quota granted to Pakistan shall 
be distributed equally between the private and 
public sector with an additionality of 12000 
pilgrims in the private sector and corresponding 
reduction in the public sector. 
(c) 
The restriction on the Hajj Group Organizers on 
change in point of departure shall be relaxed for 
Hajj 
2013 
to 
facilitate 
inter 
regional 
accommodation between the members of HOAP. 
The deadline in the private Hajj Group Organizers 
fixed earlier 20th July 2013 shall be extended to 
 
-: 8 :-
30th Ramazan, 1434 subject to concurrence by 
Saudi authorities. 
(d) 
The 
change 
in 
quota 
necessitated 
by 
the 
extraordinary circumstances shall be without 
prejudice to the original quota of Hajj group 
Organizers in 2013 before announcement of 
reduction or revision. 
(e) 
The distribution of additional 3000 and the 
subsequent 12000 next year shall be on pro-rata 
basis amongst all Hajj Group Organizers. 
(f) 
That HOAP would facilitate through their Hajj 
Group Organizers on other Provinces the Hajj 
Group Organizers of Karachi to fulfill their 
contractual liabilities for Hajj 2013, and assured 
to provide a quota upto 5000 with mutual 
arrangements. 
 
6. 
 
The learned counsel submitted that the commitments 
made by the MORA through the above MoU are of a binding nature, 
and fully attracts the principle of promissory estoppal, as the member 
of HOAP have acted on the faith of the said memo, who are therefore 
entitled to the continued provision of their quota in terms thereof. He 
submitted that the allocation made to the members of the HOAP as 
prescribed in terms of the above MOU came under scrutiny before 
this Court in Dossani Travels’ case (supra) where this Court, after 
thoroughly examining and analyzing all the factual and legal aspects 
involved, set-aside the order dated 24.6.2013, whereby a learned 
Judge of the Lahore High Court directed MORA to allocate the quota 
retrieved from 19 HGOs, (on account of their poor performance 
during the preceding Hajj), through a bidding process. Mr. Zuberi 
also referred to the judgment in Muhammad Arif Idrees case (supra), 
in terms whereof this Court was pleased to set-aside an interim order 
passed by the Lahore High Court in a writ petition, restraining MORA 
from allocating 15000 pilgrims, out of the government scheme to the 
HGOs who operated during the Hajj 2013, (which allocation was 
 
-: 9 :-
being made in pursuance of the above MoU), and was also pleased to 
set-aside a judgment of the said Court in WP No.1332/2014, whereby 
Hajj policy 2014, to the extent of the aforesaid grant of quota of 
15000 pilgrims, was declared without lawful authority, with direction 
to the MORA to, in the first instance, utilize the said quota itself and 
in case it is unable to do so, the same be offered to all the tour 
operators/HGOs registered with the MORA. 
7. 
 
Mr. Abid Zuberi further submitted that it was on the 
faith of the aforesaid MoU, and on the assurance of its adherence, 
that the members of HOAP were persuaded to accept the reduction in 
their quota of 50% to 40%, for the Hajj 2013 and that it was in 
pursuance of the above MoU and keeping in view the future 
prospects thereunder, that the members of HOAP made heavy 
investments to increase/maintain their capacity and resources to be 
able to make arrangements of the magnitude commensurate to their 
respective quotas in terms of the MoU, and also raised their 
respective paid up capital as required by MORA. Mr. Zuberi further 
submitted that the judgment of this Court in Dossani Travels’ case 
(supra) has nowhere ordered the curtailment of the quota as 
granted/maintained and promised to the members of the HOAP in 
terms of the aforesaid MoU, and that the orders of the High Courts 
curtailing the said quota, or for dispensing the same to others 
through auction, or otherwise, have been set-aside by this Court at 
least thrice, thus endorsing the legality, propriety and currency of the 
aforesaid MoU. He submitted that through yet another judgment, 
rendered in the case of Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan 
Islamabad etc. v. Al-Qasim Hajj & Umrah Services (Pvt.) Ltd and 
another, (in CP No.1180, 1265 and 1297 of 2016 etc.), on 03.5.2016, 
(the third judgment), this Court found the proposed reduction of the 
quota of the members of HOAP from 50% of the national quota, to 
 
-: 10 :-
40% thereof to be violative of the aforesaid MoU, whereby the original 
quota in favour of the members of the HOAP has been protected. He 
further submitted that a  vested right in the maintenance of the 
original quota has been created in favour of the members of HOAP, as 
relying upon the government representation contained in the MoU 
they have made substantial investments to improve their Hajj 
services and also increased their paid up capital as required by the 
government. Concluding his submissions the learned counsel 
submitted that it is absolutely misconceived to claim that the 
allocation of the entire quota for private sector to the members of the 
HOAP is in any way violative of any direction contained in the 
Dossani Travels case. On the contrary any reduction in the quota of 
the members of the HOAP and its allocation to the present 
petitioners, or to any one else would be contrary to and violative of 
the dictums of this Court in the afore-discussed cases and urged 
dismissal of the present petitions. 
8. 
 
Mr. Sohail Mehmood, learned DAG submitted that the 
directions given by this Court in the afore-noted judgments have 
been complied with, to the extent possible. However, since after 
allocating quota to the Members of the HOAP no surplus quota is 
available to be allocated to the non-quota holder HGOs, but efforts 
are underway so that a possibility be created for granting quota to 
them also. Learned DAG while arguing the matter also referred to the 
concise statements filed on behalf of respondent No.1, relevant 
portions whereof have been noted in the later part of the judgment.  
9. 
 
Hajj is a sacred and a mandatory religious obligation for 
every adult Muslim with the requisite physical and financial capacity. 
However, because of a limited capacity and financial resources only a 
limited number of pilgrims are allowed to visit Makkah Mukarramah 
and Madinah Munawarah and perform munasik-e-Hajj each year. In 
 
-: 11 :-
the year 2011 the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) allocated a Hajj 
quota of 179,210 pilgrims for Pakistan. This was in consonance with 
the ratio of 1000 pilgrims per one million Muslim inhabitants, as 
decided by the Organization of Islamic Conference in the meeting of 
its foreign ministers held in the year 1987. 
10. 
 
The government of Pakistan in order to manage and 
organize the Hajj arrangements, and for providing various services 
like boarding, lodging, transportation and other logistic and health 
care for the pilgrims during the Hajj, evolved two separate schemes, 
one being the “Government Hajj Scheme” and the other the 
“Private Hajj Scheme”. The former for those Pakistanis who may 
want to perform Hajj under government arrangements, and the later 
for those who may want to make their Hajj arrangements through a 
private concerns duly enrolled/registered for the purpose with MORA, 
as a Hajj Group Organizer (HGO), in accordance with service provider 
agreement between MORA and HGO, and in terms of a separate 
agreement between the intending Haji and HGO. 
11. 
 
For a concern or an entity to be recognized as a HGO, it 
has to meet certain prerequisite and abide by certain terms and 
conditions prescribed by MORA, and it is only after scrutiny of its 
credentials, not only by a scrutiny committee, but also by a duly 
appointed chartered accountant, and as per certain prescribed 
criteria; that the said concern/entity is enrolled with MORA as a 
HGO. However, there are two sets of enrolled HGOs. The first set 
comprises of 743 HGOs, who have been allocated Hajj quota by 
MORA which is to be renewed every year (the quota holders), who as 
noted earlier are also the members of HOAP. The second set 
comprising 2033 HGOs, enrolled in the year 2012, through due 
process. Though the credential of all these HGOs were scrutinized 
through six Chartered Accountant firm in the year 2013, as per the 
 
-: 12 :-
criteria prescribed, to evaluate them for allocation of Hajj quota, 
however, due to some controversy a re-assessment was ordered, in 
response 1500 HGOs came forward for re-assessment, and were thus 
re-assessed accordingly. The entities enrolled in the year 2012 as 
above, were however not allocated any quota for the years 2014, 2015 
and 2016, and according to the MORA, though Hajj formulation 
committee deliberated upon the issue of allocation of Hajj quota to 
the said newly enrolled companies/HGOs but could not decide the 
matter on account of non-availability of Hajj quota, and more so for 
the reason that the committee recommended that the restored quota 
(perhaps referring to revival/restoration of 20% quota that was 
reduced by KSA in the year 2012), be allocated towards the 
government Hajj scheme. In their comments the MORA further 
submitted that the Secretary MORA has proposed constitution of a 
committee to review/scrutinize credentials of all HGOs including 
those who are newly enrolled, to pave the way for new quota regime 
before commencement of Hajj operation 2018. 
12. 
 
It was because of the above deprivation that the newly 
enrolled HGOs approached the High Courts through various 
petitions, which culminated in this Court’s afore-noted two 
judgments. In both the above judgments this court has dealt with 
peculiar circumstances arising out of a certain background, being, 
that in the year 2013 after the Government of Pakistan has accepted 
the application of the intending Hajis under the government Hajj 
scheme, and issued them facilitation letter, and had also made 
arrangements accordingly, which certainly were of a massive scale, 
KSA, on account of the ongoing expansion work of the Khana Kaaba 
reduced the overall quota for Hujjaj by 20%, which equally affected 
Pakistan, and thus the Government of Pakistan/MORA, in order to 
honour its commitment to the Hujjaj, and to utilize the arrangements 
 
-: 13 :-
made accordingly, persuaded the HGOs, who on account of their past 
participation had been issued Hajj recognition letters for the Hajj 
2013, and had also activated themselves accordingly, to agree to bear 
the said reduction in the quota, and promised to them that not only 
their share of 50% in the national quota shall be revived for Hajj 
2014, but that the present shortfall shall also be then made good by 
allocation of an additional quota accordingly, and thus the aforesaid 
MoU was signed between the parties, further more it was in 
pursuance of the said MoU that the HGOs started booking Hujjaj for 
Hajj 2014, obtained their relevant documents including CNICs and 
passports, and accordingly arranged for their accommodation in 
Makkah Mukarma and Madinah Munawara by executing rent deeds 
with the Saudi citizens. It was at this late stage that various petitions 
were filed before the High Court and therefore two different Benches 
of this Court set-aside the orders of the High Court through their 
judgment containing certain directions for MORA, as discussed 
hereinabove. 
13. 
 
As regards the judgment dated 03.5.2016 rendered in 
HOAP’s case (supra), and relied upon by Mr. Abid Zuberi, it may be 
crucial to note that the learned Judges, while rendering the said 
judgment, have in their wisdom found it necessary to mention in the 
judgment itself, that the same “may not be cited as a precedent, 
which would debar the government from exercising” their “exclusive 
powers to review/reframe the Hajj policy every year,  keeping in view 
the latest developments and expediencies, which would be subject to 
the guidelines given by this Court in Dossani’s case (supra)”, and 
that “there would be no restriction on the government to alter or vary 
the Hajj policy (quota system)”, and therefore the decision as 
contained in the said judgment, or any observation made therein, do 
not stand in the way of the government in framing a just, fair and 
 
-: 14 :-
lawful Hajj policy, and the same certainly does not come in the way of 
this Court in passing an appropriate order in the instant matter. The 
said judgment has in fact sanctified and reinforced the judgment in 
Dossani Travels’ case which required the government to frame future 
Hajj policy as directed therein and non-compliance, rather defiance 
whereof has provided a cause of action for the present petitions. 
(emphasis supplied) 
14. 
 
As noted above, the present petitioners are duly enrolled 
as HGOs with the MORA. Such enrolment was effected after the 
petitioners applied for the same in response to an advertisement 
inviting applications for enrolment as HGO from MORA, and only 
after they fulfilled the requisite qualification and met the prescribed 
criteria. They also underwent a third party evaluation, and have been 
scrutinized by chartered accountants duly appointed by the MORA, 
for the purpose, at least twice. The petitioners, being free citizens of 
this country, who enjoy certain fundamental right, including their 
right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation and to 
conduct any lawful trade or business, as enshrined by Article 18 of 
the Constitution, decided to enter into the business of Hajj 
Organizers/Operators, prepared themselves for conducting and 
carrying out the said business, and fulfilled the various terms and 
conditions as prescribed and required by MORA, and thus became 
legitimately entitled to operate as such, and to their share in the 
national Hajj quota in accordance with law, which is sine quo non to 
enable them to function/operate as HGOs. The above registration/ 
enrolment created a legitimate expectancy in the petitioners, and 
others like them, of sharing the private scheme quota with the 
members of the HOAP, but the government/MORA, despite 
recognizing their right to share the private scheme quota, and despite 
even having categorically undertaken before this Court as noted 
 
-: 15 :-
hereunder, has been avoiding/delaying to allocate their shares to the 
petitioners, and other non-quota holder HGO, on the pretext of “non-
availability of surplus quota”. It was in fact in pursuance to this 
Court’s judgment dated 21.7.2014 in Muhammad Arif Idrees’s case 
(supra), that MORA furnished before the Registrar of this Court, a 
compliance report dated 25.5.2015, with the following submissions:- 
“It is stated that during the policy formulation 
committee’s 
meeting 
held 
on 
12.03.2015, 
the 
representative 
of 
the 
commission 
showed 
his 
concerns over blockade of entry of new HGOs in the 
system. However the chair informed that the Ministry of 
Religious Affairs has issued letters to the existing HGOs 
for five years i.e. till 2015 for allocation of Hajj business 
for their long terms planning as per clause 20(II) of Hajj 
Policy 2011. So the Ministry will review the quota 
regime before Hajj Policy 2016 and new quota 
allocation 
policy 
be 
evolved 
accordingly. 
The 
representative of CCP appreciated the Ministry’s point of 
view regarding allocation of quota on merits and as per 
Policy guidelines of the concerned year.” (emphasis 
supplied) 
 
15. 
 
The non-quota holder HGOs are being denied quota 
merely on the pretext that no surplus quota is available with the 
government of Pakistan. The quota allocated by KSA to Pakistan is 
for the people of Pakistan and not for any particular group, segment 
or association. As noted above the quota for Pakistan is bifurcated by 
the government of Pakistan into two segments, one under the 
Government Hajj Scheme and the other for Private Hajj Scheme. There 
is absolutely no basis, rationale or justification to continue to grant 
quota only to those who have been granted such quota earlier also, 
as is presently being done, especially so when fresh entrants have 
been lured into joining the business/occupation of HGOs, through 
advertisement and have been enrolled as such through due process, 
as noted above. In terms of clause (c) of Article 18 of the Constitution, 
 
-: 16 :-
it is only the Federal or Provincial Government or a corporation 
controlled by any such government, that can monopolize any trade, 
business, industry or service to the exclusion of other persons. The 
artificial, unjust and unfair classification created by MORA between 
quota holder HGO, and the non-quota holder HGO also offends 
Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees to all citizen equality 
before and equal protection of law, as the above discussed differentia 
has no rationale nexus to the avowed objective of the Hajj policy, of 
developing plans for efficient Hajj arrangements through provision of 
services and logistics like affordable lodging and boarding, transport 
and health care during the Hajj, it rather runs contrary thereto. 
Creating monopoly like in the present case is also violative of clause 
(c) of Article 18 of the Constitution and defeats the provisions of 
clause (b) of Article 18 of the Constitution which provides for 
regulation of trade, commerce and industry in the interest of free 
competition therein, and as rightly laid down in the case of Arshad 
Mehmood v. Government of Punjab and others (PLD 2005 SC 193), 
as long as the trade or business is lawful, the citizen who is eligible to 
conduct the same cannot be deprived from undertaking the same 
subject to law which regulate it, and as noted earlier, the petitioners 
have been duly enrolled and as such permitted to operate as HGO 
and no handicap or disqualification has been alleged against them. 
Even in its comments, MORA has submitted that there is no rule that 
the Hajj quota once allotted cannot be reduced and further that the 
Hajj quota is allocated to private sector on yearly basis. Furthermore 
by monopolizing the private Hajj arrangements in the hands of the 
members of HOAP, the government is also depriving the intending 
Hujjaj of a larger, or may be better choices of HGO, and is thus 
facilitating/encouraging their exploitation at the hands of the former. 
 
-: 17 :-
16. 
 
In fact the issues of competition or monopoly and 
transparency are since long being raised during the deliberations and 
meetings of MORA. In fact the representative of the Competition 
Commission of Pakistan have specifically addressed these issues 
through their recommendations, as discussed herein earlier and has 
also pointed out that by allocating Hajj quota on the basis of Hajj 
operations performed by the HGO, MORA is giving undue advantage 
to the HGO who have performed larger number of Hajj operations, 
and is putting the new entrants and the HGO who have performed 
lesser number of Hajj operations at a competitive disadvantage. This 
court being cognizant of the above has through its judgment in the 
case of Dossani Travels (supra), directed MORA that in framing the 
Hajj 
policy, 
it 
should 
seek 
guidance 
from 
the 
aforesaid 
recommendations of the Competition Commission of Pakistan, and 
that the credential of each applicant/HGO should be examined and 
decision regarding allocation of quota be made on merits. 
17. 
 
In the case of Muhammad Arif Idrees (supra), this Court 
ordered that directions as contained in the case of Dossani Travels 
(supra) must be strictly adhered to in formulating Hajj policy in 
future. Whereas in the case of HOAP v. Al.Qasim Hajj & Umra 
Services (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra), this Court, whilst holding that 
government has the exclusive power to review or reform Hajj policy, 
has bridled the same with the guidelines as contained in Dossani 
Travels (supra). However, the official respondents in clear violation 
and defiance of the above dicta of this Court and their clear 
undertaking as discussed above, are still avoiding to grant any quota 
to the non-quota holder HGO, including the petitioners, and have 
thus, prima facie, made themselves liable to be proceeded against 
accordingly. We would, however, taking a lenient view, grant an 
opportunity to them to review their decision and reframe their policy, 
 
-: 18 :-
allocate quota to the petitioners and all other like them in the light of 
the above judgments. 
18. 
 
We may however observe here that in doing as above and 
while following the recommendations of the Competition Commission 
of Pakistan, MORA and the policy formulating committee may, devise 
a formula/criteria so  that where a HGO achieves a certain 
quantitative threshold, through a third party audit/evaluation, the 
number of times it has performed as HGO may not remain relevant, 
so that any HGO may not suffer on account of being a comparatively 
newer/junior HGO. The policy be reviewed/reframed in accordance 
with the foregoing and the compliance report be accordingly 
submitted within thirty days of the receipt of this order. 
19. 
 
The titled cases are accordingly disposed of. 
 
 
Foregoing are the reasons for our short order of the even date. 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad the, 
21st April 2017 
 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
(Aamir Sh.) 
