ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to Federal Ministers for Religious Affairs and Science & Technology, Attorney General for Pakistan, DG FIA, secretaries of the concerned ministries, and Establishment Division in suo moto case regarding alleged corruption in Haj arrangements. Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has taken suo moto notice of irregularities in Haj arrangements on the complaints of three MNAs, two Senators, a letter written by Prince Bandar Bin Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz-Al-Saud and applications received by Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday from different Hajjis during performance of Haj. A five-member special bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Raja Fayyaz, Justice Ghulam Rabbani and Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday would hear the case from December 6. Minister for Religious Affairs Hamid Saeed Kazmi and Minister for Science and Technology Azam Swati were asked to appear in person or through duly authorised representatives. The Minster for Religious Affairs was asked to submit his reply to rebut the charges of corruption. Similarly Azam Swati was called upon to furnish evidence, if any, to prove allegations of corruption as levelled by him. The Secretary Religious Affairs is also directed to file record showing composition of committee which was responsible to hire buildings in Makkah during Haj in November 2010 with their status as government servants stating: What was the Haj policy for the year 2010 including grant of the licenses/ quotas to tour operators during the period of Haj along with number/detail of tour operators to whom the quotas were allocated for Haj of 2010 as well as terms and conditions of the said quotas? What was the break-up of the total charges received by the Ministry of Religious Affairs from pilgrims for Haj 2010 and break-up of the charges received by the tour operators from pilgrims and the amount paid by them to the Government? What was the difference between the charges received by the Ministry of Religious Affairs/tour operators and the neighbouring government i.e. India, Afghanistan, Iran and Bangladesh and the facilities which they extended to the pilgrims? How many visits the committee members carried out individually and collectively to Saudi Arabia to hire the buildings? What was the criterion for selecting the buildings? The Secretary was asked to provide details of each building with its accommodations along with facilities and distance of building from Haram along with amount of rent received from each pilgrim. If the buildings were hired at a distance of 7 to 9 km from Haram what was the reason as to why buildings were not hired near Haram and what is the average rent of such buildings, which were hired? The statement issued by the SC said there was material available on record to prima facie hold that pilgrims had been deprived of their fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 9, 14 and 25 of the Constitution. Therefore, these matters be clubbed and registered as a petition under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. Notice was also issued to DG FIA to appear in person and produce Rao Shakeel Ahmed, former DG Haj Directorate, Saudi Arabia, in safe custody and put up comprehensive report regarding investigation of the case. However Rao Shakeel Ahmed is also free to file reply to above allegations of corruption if desired by him The Chairman NAB was directed to submit a report as to whether or not any case under NAO 1999 is pending inquiry or trial before Court of law with progress report against Rao Shakeel. The Secretary Establishment was ordered to appear and produce summary of the appointment of Shakeel as DG Haj with details as to whether any case was pending against him if so then why he was posted as DG Haj and by whom, while the Secretary Interior was asked whether or not name of Rao Shakeel Ahmed was on ECL, if so since when and on whose directions his name was removed from the list enabling him to travel outside he country. Notice to members of the Committee to Parliamentarians who compiled the report dated 1.9.2010 be also issued with observations that if they desire, they can appear in the court in support of their report. Notice to proprietors of tour operators to whom quotas were allocated should also be issued so they may reply about the above allegations and submit as to whether they facilitated/accommodated according to the contract with the pilgrims or otherwise.