TOURIST APPROVED GUIDE ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction annulling the scheme of enlisting licensing of tourist guides and controlling and restricting their profession by mere executive fiat varying from time to time without the sanction of any law. The petitioners have further sought a direction that the respondents may be directed to create some autonomous body to regulate and control tourism like other profession. It is also prayed that respondents may be prohibited and restricted from regulating this business.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner No. 1 is a Tourist Approved Guide Association, Khajuraho and Shri O. P. Sharma is the President along with Shri Sudhir Sharma, Gangaprasad and Brijendra Singh who are working as guides at Khajuraho, Distt. Chhatarpur, M. P. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 are members of this Association. It is alleged that Govt. of India invites applications by advertising in newspapers for suitable candidates for enrolment by selection of guide training course consisting of lectures in History of India, Indian Art, Culture, Dance, Archaeology, Architecture, Wild life, Aviation, Transportation, Functions of travelling Agencies including ticketing, Reservation, Hotels, Airports. etc.. Candidates were required to go through comprehensive written test and those qualified in the test are then given identity cards to operate as approved guides in a certain region subject to certain terms and conditions. It is alleged that some terms and conditions were laid down in 1976-77 and candidates who accepted those terms and conditions, were issued identity cards. Their licences are renewable from time to time. It is alleged that applications for tourist guide training course are invited through advertisements region-wise from time to time and Khajuraho tourist centre is covered by the Regional Office at Bombay. First such applications were invited in 1968 and after 1968, advertisements have been issued in 1970, 1976, 1986 and 1989, last such advertisement was issued as per this petition, in March 1991. Copy thereof has been filed as Annexure P-2.

(3.) Grievance of the petitioners is that respondents are arbitrarily taking this test and granting licence and there is no law authorising them for holding the tests and granting licence and renewing them. Therefore, they have challenged by this petition the action of the State being unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that the age of superannuation has been fixed as 60 years which has no nexus. It is alleged that there is no regularity in holding the course, there are no guiding principles, there is no authority for the respondents to fix numbers, there are no fixed guidelines and there is no uniformity. It is submitted that the licence granted to such paying guides for a period of one year has to be renewed and there are no guidelines how the renewal can be withheld and for suspension. It is also said that the guidelines laid down by them are arbitrary. It is alleged that clause 2 of 1986 terms makes the travel guide liable for disciplinary action. Petitioners have also challenged clause 10 of the 1986 terms which enjoins on the tourist guides a duty to take the tourist to only establishments/shops approved by the Department of Tourism in preference to unapproved shops/establishments. They have also challenged clause 14 of the terms and conditions of 1986 which makes the guide liable for certain penalties in case of late arrival. They have also challenged clause 26 which provides that if the guide remains absent from active guiding service for a period exceeding two years due to reasons of health, absence from country etc., he/she shall be deemed to have left the profession and in that event, the licence/identity card of the guide shall stand cancelled. Petitioners have also challenged the fee fixed for each tourist guides. In this background, the guidelines which were issued way back in 1986, are challenged in this petition.