JAG MOHAN LAL MEHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an approved guide under the authority of Director -General of Tourism, Government of India, New Delhi. He has been issued an identity card by the Tourism Department. The petitioner is supposed to be working as guide and carries on the profession of guide on places of tourism including ancient monuments and archaeological sites where the tourists used to visit. The tourist guide as such serves a public purpose. The tourist guide are guided by certain conditions imposed on them while identity card is issued to them. The condition No. 17 restricts the age of guide up to sixty years. The petitioner is challenging the age limit of sixty years and submits that since the petitioner is not given any emolument nor they are given any benefit or perquisites by the Tourism Department there should not be any age limit of tourist guide. They should be allowed to work as a guide till then they are incapable of acting as a tourist guide. The petitioner is not entitled to any type of pension, gratuity, provident fund etc. or other retirement benefits in the case when they are supposed to cease as a guide. Though, they have to equip themselves with the knowledge and background of historical places and monuments. They also equipped themselves with the different languages in order to meet the people of different countries. The age limit of a guide is a unreasonable restrictions on the right to practice the profession as a guide after the age of sixty years. The same is arbitrary and violative of Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner moved this petition in the year 1985. No counter affidavit has been filed so far nor any counsel representing the Union of India is present in the court when the matter is taken up for hearing.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and am satisfied that the writ petition is bound to succeed. The petitioner is carrying on the business of a guide without any help or assistance or without any provision or any perquisites available to them by the Government of India. In the absence of any monetary benefit being made available to the guide the profession of the petitioner cannot be restricted by an arbitrary condition restricting the age of the guide. The guide can work as a right as long as he is capable to work as a guide. Any condition affecting the profession of the guide is contrary to Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to carry on the business of a guide as long as he is capable to carry on such business. The condition No. 17 is hereby quashed. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.