PAVAN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Principal reliefs claimed in these petitions are three fold, (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioners as Professional Guides on the ground that they do not have licence from the department of Archaeological Survey of India or Tourism, (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the last part of R.8(d) of the Rules made under the Ancient Monument and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue licence to the petitioners forthwith.

(2.) Sri G.C. Bhattacharya, counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petn. No.29806 of 1990 led the principal arguments and the counsel appearing for the petitioners in other writ petitions made short work of their arguments by adoption of the arguments canvassed by Sri G. C. Bhattacharya. Bottomline of the arguments advanced by Sri G.C. Bhattacharya was that the petitioners had vested fundamental right to carry on the vocation of Guides and the Department of Tourism could not levy any restriction on their rights by executive orders. The validity of Rule 8(d) though challenged in the petition was not assailed at the time of arguments but what Sri. G.C. Bhattacharya urged was that under R.8(d) the power to grant licence under the rule vests with the Archeological Officer but in fact, proceeded the argument, the licence is practically granted by the department of Tourism which is unauthorised in law and further that in the garb of granting licence, the Tourism Department is illegally interfering with the petitioners' profession as Guides.

(3.) Smt. Poonam Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents refuted the submissions made by Sri G.C. Bhattacharya and urged that what the Tourism Department does is to select proper persons as Guides and issue Identity Cards to such persons who are ultimately issued licences under R.8(d) of the Rules by the Archeological Officer. Smt. Poonam Srivastava, also urged that the points raised by Sri G.C. Bhattacharya are covered by a decision of the Division Bench dated 10/09/1992 rendered in C.M. Writ Petn, No.10714 of 1991, Virendra Kumar Chadha v. Union of India.