LAHORE, May 2: The Lahore High Court on Wednesday stayed Haj quota allocation process for being disbursed among previously-registered Haj Group Organisers (HGOs) only, and sought a detailed reply from the Ministry of Religious Affairs.

Issuing the stay order, Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that allocation of quota to only previously-registered HGOs was a violation of Haj Policy 2012. Both new and old operators should be given equal opportunity to apply for the quota, he remarked.

The judge stopped the quota allocation process and adjourned hearing of group operators’ petitions till May 9.

The petitioners through their counsel Muhammad Azhar Siddique submitted that owing to unjust distribution of Haj quota to private tour operators, it had become impossible for a common man to bear Haj expenses. They said the Haj policy 2012 had been announced and a plan had been made to dish out quota on personal liking and disliking.

The petitioners stated that the Supreme Court in its July 7, 2011 order had observed that the government should observe transparency at the time of making next year’s (2012) Haj policy. But, they said, the orders were ignored this year too.

They pointed out that last year the ministry and 721 tour operators had taken a plea that money had been received from pilgrims and their lists had also been sent to Saudi Arabia. The petitioners said the ministry was again giving quota to these 721 tour operators and door had been closed for new operators.

They further said at least 70 tour operating companies were being run in the names of close relatives of ministry officers but no action had been taken against them.

The petitioners prayed to the court to cancel the allocation of the quota allegedly based on favouritism and direct the government to associate real stakeholders and non-government associations for bringing transparency in the Haj policies.

promotion cases: The Lahore High Court chief justice on Wednesday turned down a plea seeking stay of a promotion board meeting convened to decide cases of DSP-rank officers.

A law officer submitted a reply on behalf of the IGP, wherein it was stated that pursuant to the court’s order meeting of the Promotion Board had been convened and promotions would be granted to eligible DSPs in accordance with rules.

However, representing some DSPs, a lawyer raised objection on the decision of convening the meeting and requested the court to issue a stay order. The CJ, however, declined the plea and adjourned hearing till May 10.

The chief justice was hearing a contempt of court petition against the Punjab IGP, filed by DSPs who were denied their due promotion to the rank of SPs.

The petitioners had pleaded that the department was not promoting them on the objection that they did not have the two-year field work experience which, they said, was not mandatory for the promotion.

Some petitioners said their promotion to the rank of SP had been due for many years but the department’s higher-ups had not granted them promotion so far. They said the Supreme Court had also ordered the department to promote them but the authorities ignored that order too.