VISHWA NIWAS MISHRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question involved in this writ petition is as to whether before refusing to renew the licence to hold the post of 'A' class guide at the Observatory, Director of Archaeology and Museum, Rajasthan Jaipur should have afforded an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or not. There is no dispute that the licence for guiding the tourists was issued by the Director of Archaeology and Museums, Rajasthan Jaipur to the petitioner after holding interview of the persons who desired to get a licence. The licence issued is a permission for guiding the tourists inside the protected monuments. The licence was issued in favour of the petitioner Vishwa Niwas Mishra by the Director, Archaeology and Museums, Rajasthan and was to expire on 31st December, 1984. The petitioner applied for renewal of licence on December, 31, 1984 and moved an application to the Director, Archaeology and Museum Rajasthan. As per the procedure, the applicant should have moved his application for renewal of licence to the Supervisor of the Observatory, Jaipur and the Supervisor was to forward the application along with his comments to the Superintendent of Archaeology and Museum Department, Jaipur and he in turn was to forward the same to the Director as per Rule 3 of the guide rules. The licence of petitioner was not renewed.

(2.) THE petitioner sent an application by post to this Court which was treated as a writ petition by Hon'ble D.L. Mehta, J. and all formalities have been dispensed with. The State and the non -petitioner Director were called upon to file reply. In the reply, that has been filed by the respondent it has been stated that the petitioner has not followed the departmental rules and started misbehaving with the departmental Officers and co -guides. A complaint was lodged against the petitioner on July, 16, 1984 by coguides to the Supervisor of the Observatory, Jaipur. The petitioner was asked to give explanation and he sent reply without explanation. The Supervisor forwarded the matter to the Circle Superintendent on 3 -8 -1984 and on 16 -8 -1984, Superintendent, Archaeology and Museum Department, Jaipur asked the petitioner to give his explanation within 7 days for violation of rules 5 and 7 of the rules in relation to the guide rules (in short 'the rules'). But the petitioner again did not furnish the explanation. A written warning was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent for absence when the Superintendent took round in the Museum. The petitioner inspite of the warning dated 21 -9 -1984 did not improve his behaviour, and as the term of licence expired on 31st December, 1984 on the basis of report of the Supervisor and as the annual work of the petitioner was not satisfactory, the matter was considered by the Director who forwarded the matter to the Minister who took decision not to renew the licence.

(3.) IT , can, therefore, be said that the holder of the licence, the petitioner in this case, as a guide had reasonable expectation that he will be called upon and will be heard in case renewal of licence is to be refused to him. In a case where a person cannot be said to have any expectation of being called upon to say any thing the principles of natural justice will not be applied.