IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP PIL No. 111 of 2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 Parvinder Singh Kittna …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others …..Respondents
 
  
 
   
  Present : Mr. H.C.Arora, Advocate with Ms. Sunaina, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. ****   
 
 The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed raising a public cause by seeking quashment of ‘Mukh Mantri Tirth Yatra Scheme’ issued vide circular dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure P-2). The said scheme extends benefit of free travelling, boarding and lodging for persons of desirous of visiting pilgrimages i.e. Sri Hazur Sahib Nanded, Patna Sahib, Varanasi, Mathura and Vrindavan, Sri Amritsar Sahib, Sri Anandpur Sahib, Sri Damdama Sahib, Talwandi Sabo, Mata Chintpurni, Mata Jwalaji, Mata Naina Devi, Mata Vaishno Devi, Khatu Sham ji and Salasar Dham. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said scheme has been floated by the Government of Punjab vide circular dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) whereas the parliamentary elections were scheduled to be held in April-2024. The petitioner has cited a decision dated 08.05.2012 rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India and others vs. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan and another (Annexure P-3) for the said purpose which essentially deals with RAVINDER KUMAR 2026.04.01 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
    [2] Hajj subsidy and directs all the States to ensure that the said subsidy in a phased manner be reduced to zero in 10 years. State of Punjab has come out with response by way of affidavit duly sworn by Moneesh Kumar, IAS, State Transport Commissioner, Punjab that the scheme is a policy decision of the Government of Punjab which is a welfare State under the Constitution. The scheme is meant for welfare of certain persons without fixing any economic criteria for enabling them to visit the places of pilgrimages mentioned in the said scheme. In the considered opinion of this Court, the fixation of economic criteria to enable persons of economically weaker sections to avail the said scheme would have been better. However, considering the fact that the scheme in question exclusively lies within the domain of the public policy framed by the Government, this Court declines interference and relegates the petitioner to raise objections before the State Government which may consider the same in accordance with law. It is always open to the petitioner to revisit the Court in case the request made by him is not acceded to. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE 30.03.2026 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No RAVINDER KUMAR 2026.04.01 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document