Major (R) Shahid Mehmood Awan (Petitioner) VS M/s Karwan-e-Royal Karachi and Ohters (Respondent)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No.D-4O6 OF 20.24 Date Order with signature of Judge

present:

Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, C.J.

Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho.

Major (retired) Shahid Mehmood Awan ....petitioner Versus

M/s.Kanran-e-Royal Karachi & others ...Respondents

Date of hearing 29u' Januarv. 2O24 Ms.Bushra Zia alongwith Ms.Motia Sikandar, Advocates for the petitioner.

Abdul Mobeen Lakho. J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against rhe impugned decision dated 2g. t2.2023 passed by Appellate committee on an appeal fired by Respondent No. r against the decision of complaint Disposal committee, Ministry of Religious Affairs & Interfaith Harmony, in rvhich on a complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent No.1, whereby the respontlent No. I (Hajj Group Organizer) was directed to pay Rs.50,0001 each to cornprainant and beside imposing fine of Rs'50,000/- the respondent No.l was placed under suspension for one year.

The petitioner has prayed as under:-

(a). Declare impugned Order dated 29.12.2023 as void, unlawful, discriminatory and made in violation of SpA Agreement as well as in flagrant disregard and contrary to the prescribed criteria of Service Provider as enunciated bv MORA.

(b). Direct Respondent No.3 to upheld and execute order dated 26.g.2023 in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent No. l in letter and spirit.

(c)To restrain and prohibit Respondent No.l from making any Hajj deals and offer Hajj & umrah Package fbr one year as the sarne has alreadv been declared as black listed in order dated 26.09.2023.

2.Briefly the fact of the case are that in the year 2023 the petitioner along with his farnily planned to perform Hajj in 2023 and decided to avail Hajj Package of Respondent No.r, who offered i'c" package, which contained more

than a rnonth stay in Makkah and Madina. return Air fare, lodgement facilities, hotel stay, separate room, food and other amenities which costs around Rs.13,85,000/- per person. Howe'er, the Respondent neither provided any receipt for the above amount nor the signed SpA (Service provider Agreement) under the law. The petitioner was told that it would not be possible to accommodate petitioner's complete family (06 members) in a single room as roolr can accommodate 4 or 5 persons. After arriving in Makkah Respondent No. i accommodated Petitioner's family into two groups i.e. his wife along with two daughters were accommodated in a room with two stranger ladies and Petitioner with his two rninor sons were accommodated in other room and in Madina also the petitioner and his family treated/accomrnodated in the same manner' According to petitioner the entire family as rvell as the entire Hajj Group experienced stress, mental agony and being uncomfortable atter experiencing pathetic facilities provided to rhe petitioner during entire stay of Hajj.

Respondent No. l, rr,,ho tried to extort money from public atlarge dishonestly by misusing its name, experience and reputation under the garb of MORA for Hajj & Urnrah Services.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that complaint Disposar Appellate committee has unlawfully' decided the fate of the appeal filed by Respondent No. I based on mala fide, unwarranted, unfair and is against the interest of public at large, therefore, the impugned order dated: 28-12-2023 announced in contravention and in violation of clauses c (12) and l(l) of su Service Provider Agreement (SPA) is arbitrary, erroneous and unsustainable as the same contravenes the aforementioned major penalty clauses of SpA.

wherein, it has been categorically stated that the Service Provider in violation of

the relevant clauses shall be black listed. Learned counsel further argued that the

impugned order is bad in raw and Respondent No.3 has acted in a manner which

can only be classified as discriminatory, mala fide and the acts and omissions of

the Respondent No.3 are illegal and ultra vires and further that dated 26-9-2023

pronounced by the Respoudent No. 2 is affirrnative and in conjunction with the

clauses of the SPA, therefore. is rikely to be upherd in letter and spirit.

4' Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Learned

counsel for the petitioner was asked to satisft on the question of the maintainability of instant petition against the order passed by Appellate committee, Hajj-2023, rvherein, cornpensation and damages has been denied

regarding hardship and agony caused to the petitioner and his family during Hajj-2023 by a private organization (ri.espondent No.l), rvhereas, alternate

remedy is available to the petitioner to file Suit lor compensation and damages.

Leamed counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this court on the aforesaid

query, however' submits that through instant petition the petitioner has

challenged the impugned decision of the Appellate committee to be declared unlau'ful. discriminatory and against the major penalty clauses of service Provider Agreement. therefore, liable to be set-aside. The perusar of the impugned decision reflects that thc Appellate committee has reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000i- but the Appellate committee has imposed fine of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited in the Government Treasury and placed the Respondent No.l (HGo) under observation for one year.

5.In the present case the alleged claim of viorations of Service provider Agreement translating into damages/cornpensation if at all is a factual controversy cannot be decided in rvrit .jurisdiction. The appraisal of the

impugned decision expounded that the petitioner has been awarded Rs.50,000/- per complainant as compensation as well as tlre Respondent No.I has been placed under observation for one year, therefore, through impugned Decision the amount of compensation has been assessed and if the petitioner is not satisfied or feels that the amount of compensation is not as per his expectation or less than the agony caused to hirn and his family, he is at liberty seek redressal of his grievance by filing civil suit in accordance with law, as this Court cannot go into miniature anC diminutive details which could only be resolved by adducing evidence by the parties vice versa.

6.In the case in hand, the remedy of filing civil suit was an appropriate and alternate remedy as remedium juris rvhich was more convenient, beneficial and effective. This Court keeping in mind the numerous dictums laid down by the superior Courts recapitulate that this Court cannot resolve the disputed question of facts in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article I99 of the Constitution.

7 . For the foregoing reasons, instant petition is dismissed along with listed applications. The above are the reasons of our short order dated i -- _il' Ju,

i'f,/ //il* Chidf Justice