Judgment :- (F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla,J.) 1. In all these appeals the challenge is to the common order of the learned single Judge dated 30.08.2010 passed in W.P.Nos.13106/2010 etc batch. The issue concerned the claim of the respective respondents for registration and allotment of Haj quota as Private Tour Operators for the Haj pilgrims to perform Haj in the year 2010. By the impugned order the learned Judge set aside the alleged flaws in the Haj policy of the appellant in the year 2010 by which the appellant decided that only those Private Tour Operators who were registered and allotted the quota for Haj 2010 would only be eligible to apply for registration and allotment of quota for Haj 2010. An identical challenge was sustained by the Kerala High Court in certain Writ Petitions which was subject matter of challenge before the Honble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal(Civil)No.27032/2010 with SLP(C) No.27065/2010. The Honble Supreme Court by its order dated 21.9.2010 ultimately set aside the Division Bench order of the Kerala High Court and declined to interfere with the Haj Policy of 2010. The Honble Supreme Court while setting aside the order of the Kerala High Court has held as under : "1. We are informed that there are total number of 45,491 Haj pilgrims to be taken for Haj 2010 which quota is allotted to the Pvt.Tour Operators. The Private Tour Operators already stand identified whose numbers are approximately 615 and they have been selected by the Govt. of India and specified numbers of pilgrims are also being distributed amongst them giving them a specific numbers. 2. If at this stage any other order is passed, the same, in our opinion would definitely create complications and would open up a pandoras box which we do not want to do. Therefore, we are upholding the legality and validity of the policy in principle and we are not interfering with the Haj Policy for 2010. However, while doing so, we direct the Govt. of India to consider the cases of all the respondents Private Tour Operators herein for allocation of Haj quota for Haj 2011 as stated by the Govt. Therefore, we are upholding the legality and validity of the policy in principle and we are not interfering with the Haj Policy for 2010. However, while doing so, we direct the Govt. of India to consider the cases of all the respondents Private Tour Operators herein for allocation of Haj quota for Haj 2011 as stated by the Govt. of India in their policy decision for Haj 2010 and also as stated by Mr.Venugopal and if they are found to be qualified, they shall be given preference for allocation of Haj quota in addition to the already existing ones as agreed to by Mr.Venugopal particularly in view of the fact that these Respondents Private Tour Operators have been trying to get themselves registered for three years i.e. For 2008, 2009 and also this year for Haj 2010. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these petitions stand disposed of. While passing this order, we leave the questions of law, which arose for consideration before the Division Bench, open." In the light of the said order of the Honble Supreme Court the order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. 2. However before passing final orders we wish to record the submissions of Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the respondents herein who pointed out before us that the respondents were all applicants who were seeking for the registration right from the year 2008 onwards, that their claims were not considered on merits. The learned senior counsel also contended that while on the one hand the appellant claimed that no new Private Tour Operator was admitted for the year 2010. The PTOs quota list released by the appellant disclosed inclusion of 7 new operators, that out of 7, 4 of them were fresh Private Tour Operators and the 3 others were the black listed Private Tour Operators. That apart on behalf of the appellant an additional affidavit was filed on 08.9.2010. The PTOs quota list released by the appellant disclosed inclusion of 7 new operators, that out of 7, 4 of them were fresh Private Tour Operators and the 3 others were the black listed Private Tour Operators. That apart on behalf of the appellant an additional affidavit was filed on 08.9.2010. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit it has been stated that there were several complaints of misuse of quota by various Private Tour Operators who were allotted such quota during the year 2009, that some of them sold their quota to certain other old Private Tour Operators for a premium, that complaints were also received from the Government of Saudi Arabia through Indian Counsulate which was forwarded to the Ministry and that the appellant wanted to ensure that no such untoward incident as referred to in the complaint takes place while formulating the policy. In the affidavit it is also stated that it is the paramount consideration of the Government of India to ensure that safety, security of the pilgrims is their main consideration and that proper facilities are extended to such pilgrims in performing their Haj. 3. While taking note of the submissions of the learned senior counsel and also the details furnished in the affidavit and the enclosed annexure it is needless to state that while considering the claims of the respondents herein for the Haj 2011, merit and merit alone should be the relevant criteria and the registration should be carried out without giving scope for any allegations of lack of bona fides. 4. With the above observations, these Writ Appeals stand allowed. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside. 5. It is also needless to state that in order to ensure such fair consideration of the claims, the process of registration is initiated and completed well in advance. This order will cover the Writ Petitions also and the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. 6. We hope and trust that the appellant will examine the complaints with all earnestness and ensure that in future there would be no scope for any deficiency when Private Tour Operators are permitted to arrange for the pilgrimage, for the passengers. Such complaints are also examined and finalised before considering the claims for registration for Haj 2011. 7. No Costs. Consequently, connected pending M.Ps. in Writ Appeals are disposed of. Connected pending M.Ps. in Writ Petitions are dismissed.