VINOD KHANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions the petitioners claim themselves to be the professional guides and under Article 226 of the Constitution they have sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their working as professional guides. Further relief sought in these petitions is for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Rule 8 (d) of the Rules framed under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

(2.) Since both the petitions involve common question of law and fact, they are being disposed of by a common order to which the learned counsel for parties have no objection.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners urged that Rule 8 (d) is ultra vires in as much as it is repugnant to Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Learned counsel elaborated this argument by saying that no criterion has been indicated in rule for grant of licence. As regards the guidelines relied on by the respondents, the learned counsel submitted that the Executive has no power to lay down guidelines in the matter of grant of licence. This argument is untenable. Rule 8(d) being regulatory in nature cannot be said to be destructive of the fundamental rights guaranted by Art. 19. Nor is the rule violative of Art. 14 in that exercise of discretion in the matter of grant of licence is regulated by the guidelines which have been issued in discharge of executive function and as such the rule cannot be said to be suffering from vice of arbitrariness. Rule 8(d) provides as thus: