PARAMOUNT STUDIO Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a dispute pertaining to carrying on business of taking photographs of persons visiting Tai Mahal and Forts at Agra and Fatehpur Sikri. These three monuments are indeed ancient monuments of historical importance. Tai Mahal is considered to be one of the wonders of the world and attracts visitors from abroad also. Before we set out the facts giving rise to the dispute, we may state here the submission made at the bar but not taken specifically in the pleadings of the petitioners to the effect that Tai Mahal and the aforesaid forts at Agra and Fatehpur Sikri are not protected monuments. We mention this submission made on behalf of the petitioners only to be rejected. These monuments have a history behind them and are known for their superb architecture and beautiful carvings. Besides, they yield revenue to the Government and also earn foreign exchange. Indisputably, they fall within the definition of the term "ancient monument" as given in Section 2 (a) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1956 (hereinafter called "the Act"). They are also covered by the definition of the term "protected monument" as given in Section 2 (j) of the Act. Even Sub-section (2) of Section 39 makes them ancient monuments and protected monuments because as pointed out earlier they are of national importance.

(2.) The petitioners claim to be doing photographers' business for the last several years at Agra. They claim high professional skill and wide business including that of photographing visitors and tourists within the premises of Tai Mahal and other historical monuments at Agra and Fatehpur Sikri. According to the petitioners there was no restriction of any kind on their aforesaid business till the year 1963. However, during the middle of that year, the petitioners were obstructed in their profession and business by the superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, Northern Circle, Agra, and they objected to the same. Ultimately Writ Petn. No. 2158 of 1966. Bhim Singh v. Union of India, was filed by some of the petitioners in this Court. That Writ Petition, it is alleged, was withdrawn as not Dressed because a compromise was entered into between the petitioners of that petition and the respondents. However, subsequently the Director General of Archaeological Survey of India informed the petitioners that he had decided to introduce a system of licence for permitting the photographers to take the photos of visitors who visit Tai Mahal, Agra, and therefore issued a general notice to grant licences on certain terms and conditions. The pro forma of the terms and conditions for issue of licence along with the agreement is Annexure I to this writ petition. The petitioners have contended that the terms and conditions set out in Annexure I were all illegal and without authority and tantamount to infringement of their right to carry on their business as guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. They say that respondent No. 3 had made up his mind to take the test of the petitioners within a week. Hence if the test was taken temporary licences granted to the petitioners will come to an end and they would be put to irreparable injury. They also say that the demand for payment of Rs. 1,000/- per annum for doing business of photography at Tai Mahal and Rs. 1,000/- per annum at other historical monuments while granting licences is illegal. The petitioners have, therefore, challenged the validity of Rule 8 (d) framed under the Act and have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to prohibit or obstructs the petitioners-photographers from photographing their clients or visitors against the back ground of Tai Mahal, Agra or within the precincts of the other monuments and also for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the amended Rule 8 (d) a copy of which is Annexure-2 to this writ petition. A writ to quash the levy of so-called licence fee of Rs. 1,000/per annum per photographer has also been prayed.

(3.) The petition has been opposed and a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Northern Circle, Agra, respondent No. 3 to the present writ petition.