Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/14030/2026 of MS KHADIM TOURS AND TRAVELS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. on 23 September 2026
Page 1 of 3 $~80 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010455732026 + W.P.(C) 14030/2026 & CM APPL. 65647/2026, CM APPL. 65648/2026 MS KHADIM TOURS AND TRAVELS .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Warisha Farasat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohd. Ainul Ansari, Mr. Salamul Ansari,
$~80
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010455732026
+
W.P.(C) 14030/2026 & CM APPL. 65647/2026, CM APPL.
65648/2026
MS KHADIM TOURS AND TRAVELS
.....Petitioner
Through:
Ms. Warisha Farasat, Senior
Advocate
with
Mr.
Mohd.
Ainul Ansari, Mr. Salamul
Ansari, Mr. Manoj Kumar
Goyal, Mr. Rishabh Goyal, Ms.
Suvarna Swain and Ms. Astha,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with
Ms. Shreya Jetly, Advocate and
Mr. Varun Malik, GP for R1.
Mr.
Arjun
Mitra,
Senior
Advocate with Mr. Sarfaraz
Ahmad, Mr. Asad Ullah Sheikh
and Ms. Jyanti Jha, Advocates
for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
23.09.2026
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No.1 to consider and decide the Petitioner’s representation dated 27.08.2026 / grievances by a reasoned and speaking order within a timebound period;
b. direct Respondent No.1 to conduct an independent inquiry into the disputed 38 Haj seats and the alleged conduct of Respondent No.2, including verification of the relevant quota, NUSUK/MASAR, passenger, visa, accommodation and financial records, and to take appropriate action in accordance with the applicable Haj Policy;
c. direct preservation and production of all relevant documentary and electronic records relating to the Petitioner’s quota and the disputed 38 seats, including NUSUK/MASAR records and access logs, so as to prevent their alteration, deletion or loss; d. direct Respondent No.2 to produce, the complete NUSUK/MASAR wallet/account statement for Haj-2026, including the complete credit, debit, utilisation and transaction history together with the complete bank statements/transaction statements of the bank account(s) used by Respondent No.2 for Haj-related transactions during Haj-2025 and Haj-2026, for the purposes of independent reconciliation, verification and regulatory inquiry;
e. direct Respondent No.1, upon determination of the matter, to grant appropriate consequential relief, including restoration/reinstatement of the Petitioner’s quota and refund/recovery of amounts found due, and to take permissible regulatory action against Respondent No.2 in accordance with law;
f. pending inquiry against Respondent No. 2 and final disposal of the present Petition, direct Respondent No.1 to maintain status quo and keep in abeyance any Haj-2027 quota allocated or proposed to be allocated to Respondent Nos. 2 and other entities, insofar as connected with the disputed 38 Haj-2026 seats, and restrain creation of any third-party rights in respect thereof.;
g. grant an appropriate interim order in terms of the above pending final disposal of the present Petition; and/or”
2. The petitioner alleges that there are several irregularities in the allotment of seats for Haj-2026.
3. It remains undisputed that for the said purpose, the petitioner has already lodged a police complaint on 12.05.2026 before the Senior Inspector of Police, Police Station Pydhonie, Mumbai and has also given a representation to the respondent authority.
4. In such circumstances, this Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought not to start a parallel fact-finding inquiry.
5. The petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to the available legal remedies by approaching the respondent authority in regard to its representation.
6. The respondents are however requested to give reply to the representation made by the petitioner.
7. The present petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations. Pending applications also stand disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 DU