LHC judgement on Hajj policy challenged in SC

Private Hajj operators say LHC ruling will adversely affect up to 90,000 Hajj pilgrims.


Express June 24, 2011

ISLAMABAD: Private Hajj operators on Friday challenged the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) judgment on the Hajj Policy in the Supreme Court.

The Lahore High Court had ruled against the distribution of quota under the Hajj Policy 2011 and had cancelled the quota allotted to 650 tour operators.

The tour operators affected by this decision have now submitted a petition in the apex court, saying that the LHC ruling will adversely affect up to 90,000 Hajj pilgrims.

The petition also claims that the prospective pilgrims had spent approximately Rs6 billion that the operators had used for their hajj arrangements.

The operators have asked the Supreme Court to suspend the LHC verdict immediately.

COMMENTS (3)

Faisal | 12 years ago | Reply Dear Sir, It is the fault of HJOs who didn't inform you that Ministry has given them conditional forms about one month before the LHC Decision dated 6th June, 2011 and specified that Forms will be used subject to the decision of Lahore High Court. This is the problem that most of the HJOs keep in dark to Hujjaj and take money without informing about any risk.
abdul jabbar khan | 12 years ago | Reply n fact I have applied for Hajj 2011 alongwith my wife and submit Hajj application through a karwan.e.islami (Private haj operator group) belongs to Karachi and paid entire application money as per Hajj package on 01-06-2011 on the basis of Hajj quota allotted by Ministry of Religious affairs Pakistan. In this regard it is my humble request with hounerable chief justice of Supreme Court of Pakistan to resume Hajj quotas already allotted by Ministry for Hajj 2011 in the interest of Hajj 90,000 Hajj Pilgrims but may gave orders for next Hajj policy (Hajj 2012). and bounde the private hajj operators for facielate the haji thnks,
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ