Judgment : In the previous order passed on July 23, 2012, we had said that any Private Tour Operator (PTO) having any grievances regarding non-acceptance or rejection of his/her application for registration with the Central Haj Committee for carrying pilgrims for Haj 2012 may give the necessary particulars to Mr. Haris Beeran, who would verify the reasons for non-acceptance/rejection of the application and apprise the Court in that regard. Mr. Beeran, has today submitted a memorandum titled as "Status Report". From the memorandum, it appears that as many as 244 complaints/representations were given to him. All the 244 applications to which the complaints/representations related were thoroughly scrutinised, taking the help of a team of Chartered Accountants. From the memorandum, it appears that out of the 244 applications, a very large number were rejected because the applicants did not have any past experience as stipulated in the 2012 policy for PTOs. Many of them were rejected because they did not satisfy the criterion of having a turnover of Rupees One Crore for the year 2009-2010 or 20102011. Some were rejected for failure to satisfy some other criteria of the PTO policy. In the end, giving the benefit of doubt, the Central Haj Committee has accepted the applications of 12 PTOs (out of the 244) whose names are given in the memorandum. Those 12 PTOs would be allocated the number of pilgrims as per the relevant rules. We accept and approve the memorandum submitted by Mr. Beeran. It, however, needs to be noted here that Mr. Dushyant Dave, senior advocate, Mr. Rajiv Dutta and Mr. L.Nageswara Rao, senior advocates and a host of other counsel made a spirited appeal on behalf of a number of PTOs who were not selected for carrying pilgrims for Haj 2012 mainly on the ground that they did not satisfy the turnover criterion. Mr. Dave submitted that it is not quite reasonable to peg the turnover criterion only to the year 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 and not to take into consideration the year 2011-2012, that is, immediately preceding the Haj 2012. He submitted that there were a number of PTOs, who did not have the turnover of Rupees One Crore for the year 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 but had achieved the required turnover in the financial year 2011-2012. He submitted that it should have been more reasonable to consider them also for registration. Mr. He submitted that there were a number of PTOs, who did not have the turnover of Rupees One Crore for the year 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 but had achieved the required turnover in the financial year 2011-2012. He submitted that it should have been more reasonable to consider them also for registration. Mr. Dave and the other counsel also made some suggestions for improvement in the PTOs policy and to make it more just, reasonable and fair to all concerned. Mr. Dave's submission regarding non-inclusion of the year 2011-12 for satisfying the turnover criterion cannot be said to be entirely wit substance. However, at this stage, any alteration or change in the PTOs policy that was expressly approved by this Court's order dated May 8, 2012, is likely to cause great dislocation in the preparations for sending pilgrims for Haj 2012 and that may lead to grave consequences. We are, therefore, not inclined to modify our order dated May 8, 2012, and to make any change in the PTOs policy for Haj 2012. We are, however, glad to note that the Attorney General is fully alive to the idea that there is scope for further improvement in the PTO policy and he assured the Court that the policy for PTOs for the succeeding years would be framed taking into account the objections/suggestions made by the counsel in the course of todays proceedings. We would specially like to draw the attention of the Attorney General to one aspect of the Haj Policy 2012. The policy does not allow the entry of anyone without the past experience. We are of the view that this aspect of the matter needs to be rectified and at no cost the entry of fresh PTOs should be completely stopped, otherwise the business of carrying Haj pilgrims would become the monopoly of a handful of PTOs. We hope and expect that the policy for the next year shall be framed keeping in mind the concern expressed by the Court and the objections/suggestions made by the different counsel. We shall examine the policy for PTOs framed by the Government of India for the next year some time in the month of November, 2012. We hope and expect that the policy for the next year shall be framed keeping in mind the concern expressed by the Court and the objections/suggestions made by the different counsel. We shall examine the policy for PTOs framed by the Government of India for the next year some time in the month of November, 2012. As we were concluding today's proceedings, the Attorney General made a request that the limitation imposed on the discretionary quota allocated for the Central Haj Committee and for dignitaries and eminent persons may be made effective from the next year and for this year allocations may be allowed to remain, as stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India. We see no reason to defer our order to the next year and we are unable to accept the request made by the Attorney General. Put up this case on September 03, 2012 to examine the affairs of the Central Haj Committee and the Haj Committees of the different States.