Judgment :- B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. These two writ petitions relate to the Hajj pilgrimage. Hajj Committees were constituted both by the Central Government as also by the Government of Tamil Nadu to receive the applications every year from the persons intending to undertake the pilgrimage of Hajj to offer their prayers. The number of pilgrims prescribed for all over India per year is 72,000, and the share of the Tamil Nadu is 2,700. There is no dispute with regard to the entitlement of 2,700 pilgrims, who intend to undertake Hajj pilgrimage from Tamil Nadu, but the dispute raised is only with regard to the subsidy in airfare. 2. When the applications were called for from the pilgrims, as per the guidelines framed in Circular No.61/E/2004 dated 08.06.2003 for Hajj 2004(AH 1424), it was mentioned in Clause - 4 thereof that the passage fare for Hajj 2004 has not been finalised and that it will be notified later, and on such notification the passage fare should be paid on or before 25.09.2003. The passage fare, however, was notified only on 27.10.2003 giving time for such payment till 20.11.2003, i.e., tomorrow. 3. Mr.M.Abdul Nazeer and Mr.Md.Ashfaq Rafi, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are entitled to get subsidy in airfare at the rate of Rs.12,000/- each, but they are being asked to pay Rs.36,000/- each. 4. Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel submits that subsidy is available only for three categories of pilgrims namely., (i)pilgrims who are not income-tax payees; (ii)pilgrims who do not perform hajj for the second time; and (iii)pilgrims who do not get accommodation other than the Government accommodation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the imposition of the above three conditions, as pre-conditions for availing concessional rate of airfare is arbitrary. They based their argument on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in (i)M/s.Motilal Padampet Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Vs. The State of U.P. and Others ( AIR 1979 SC 621 ); (ii)The Gujarat State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd., ( AIR 1983 SC 848 ) 6. The above two judgments are based upon the principle of promissory estoppel on the facts stated thereon. Ltd., Vs. The State of U.P. and Others ( AIR 1979 SC 621 ); (ii)The Gujarat State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd., ( AIR 1983 SC 848 ) 6. The above two judgments are based upon the principle of promissory estoppel on the facts stated thereon. Legal principles have been stated and they are to the effect that if there is a statutory right for a party, it carries with it a statutory duty to be performed by the other person, who makes a promise, and in those circumstances, the promissor has to perform his promise. In the instant case, there was no promise made to the effect that the benefit of subsidy would be provided to the Hajj pilgrims, when the guidelines were notified on 08.06.2003. In fact, as detailed above, it was mentioned therein that the airfare would be notified later. Now, airfare has been notified prescribing Rs.36,000/- in general, carving out exemptions for persons who are economically weaker, which is to be at Rs.12,000/-. There is no promissory estoppel theory applicable here and in fact, the Government has taken proper decision to subsidise the airfare to such persons, who are economically not so sound to pay the full airfare of Rs.36,000/-, and made it one third of the same, and to identify such economically not resourceful persons, they enumerated the conditions mentioned supra, and by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the action of the Hajj Committee or the Government is unreasonable or arbitrary. In the circumstances, these two writ petitions are dismissed. However, a time of 15 days from tomorrow i.e., up to 05.12.2003 is granted for the petitioners for payment of the airfare, as mentioned in the Letter No.313/HC/C/2004 dated 27.10.2003 of the Tamil Nadu State Hajj Committee. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps. are also dismissed.