Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
This petition was filed on 14 July 2014 with the allegation that the petitioner has been working as a “Local Level Tourist Guide” in District Agra for protected monuments governed by the Archaeological Survey of India and other monuments situated in the city of Agra for the last one year but the officers of the Department of Tourism as also of the Department of Archaeology are interfering with the working of the petitioner despite the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Santosh Baghel v. Union of India Writ Petition No. 28274 of 2012 decided on 7 March 2014 connected with a batch of writ petitions. Accordingly, a mandamus has been sought to restrain the respondents from causing interference in the working of the petitioner as a guide.
Reliance has been placed in the present proceedings on the judgment of the Division Bench in Santosh Baghel. While disposing of the petitions, the Division Bench issued the following directions:
“a) Ministry of Tourism, Union of India, is directed to frame guidelines within six months for issuance of a licence for a local guide who is proficient in the Hindi language and such other languages as depicted in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India which would cater to the domestic market.
b) Till such time, the guidelines are not framed and licences to a local guide are not issued, all the respondents are restrained from interfering in the working of the petitioners as local guides in the protected monuments, which is declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance.
(c) As and when licences are issued to local guides, steps would be taken by the respondents to ensure that touts, fraudulent, unlicensed guides or any other unauthorised person(s) are not permitted for the purpose of taking the visitors around the protected monuments for a monetary consideration.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment delivered by this Division Bench in Zeeshan v. Union of India Writ Petition No. 32391 of 2014 decided on 8 July 2014 This petition had been filed with a prayer that the Local Level Tourist Guides should be permitted to work as Tourist Guides. The said petition was disposed of with the following observations:
“When the petition came up before the Court on the previous occasion, an adjournment was granted in order to enable the learned A.S.G to seek instructions on the position of the Union Government in relation to the decision of the Division Bench. During the course of the hearing, learned A.S.G has placed on the record a communication dated 7 July 2014 of the Assistant Director General of the Union Government in the Ministry of Tourism stating that the Ministry of Tourism is working on framing guidelines for issuance of license to local guides proficient in Hindi and other languages referred to in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution which would cater to the domestic market. The Court has been informed that the Government would stand by its e-mail dated 22 April 2014. The e-mail dated 22 April 2014 is also taken on record and inter alia states that the Union Government is accepting the decision of the Division Bench.
In view of the aforesaid position, which has been adopted before the Court by the Union Government, we dispose of the petition in terms of the judgment dated 7 March, 2014 since it has been stated before the Court that the Union Government has accepted the decision and is implementing the directions.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.”
It has been stated by the learned A.S.G that the Division Bench in Santosh Baghel had granted protection to those Local Level Tourist Guides who had been functioning as such in terms of the guidelines that were framed by the Department of Tourism, Government of India on 21 January 2003 but these guidelines were superseded by the new guidelines that were issued on 22 September 2011. It is, therefore, his submission that after the enforcement of the 2011 guidelines, no person can be granted permission to operate as a Local Level Tourist Guide and the protection that was given to the Local Level Tourist Guides in Santosh Baghel was a protection limited to those guides who had been operating as Local Level Tourist Guides under the 2003 guidelines and not to those who have started working as Local Level Tourist Guides after the new guidelines were framed on 22 September 2011 and the earlier guidelines of 2003 were superseded.
We find considerable force in the submissions advanced by the learned A.S.G
At the present stage, the controversy relates to the work of Tourist Guides in relation to monuments covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958). On 21 January 2003, in exercise of powers conferred by section 29(a), the Union Government appointed an Additional Director General in the Department of Tourism as the statutory authority under the Act for framing and issuing guidelines for issuance of guide licences and for the approval and registration of qualified persons selected through due process by a Committee constituted for the purpose of operating in the protected monuments of national importance. Section 29 of the Act provides for a delegation of powers. In 2003, guidelines were framed in pursuance of the delegation for the grant of guide licences by the Union Government in the Department of Tourism. The guidelines of 2003 contemplate three kinds of guides, namely (i) Regional Guides; (ii) State Level Guides; and (iii) Local Guides. A detailed procedure is provided in these guidelines for selection of a Local Level Guide.
In 2011, the Ministry of Tourism, noting the importance of the vital role which is played by guides in bringing about satisfaction to tourists visiting a Country/Region/State, introduced fresh guidelines on 22 September 2011. The guidelines were also made in accordance with the delegated powers under the Act and Rules and in supersession of all the previous guidelines/clarifications issued by the Ministry of Tourism. The guidelines of 2011 provide for Regional Level Tourist Guides which fall into four categories: (i) General; (ii) General-Linguistic; (iii) Expert Guides; and (iv) Expert-Linguistic.
The guidelines which have been issued on 22 September 2011 specifically clarify that they are in supersession of all the previous guidelines and clarifications issued by the Union Ministry of Tourism. These guidelines were notified for the selection, training and licensing of Regional Level Tourist Guides and contemplate, with effect from the date of notification of the guidelines, four categories of Regional Level Guides. The 2011 guidelines do not deal with Local Level Tourist Guides at all. It is for this reason that the Division Bench in Santosh Baghel directed the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India to frame guidelines within six months for issuance of a license to a Local Guide. However, the respondents were restrained from interfering with the working of the petitioners therein as Local Guides in the protected monuments till such time as the guidelines were not framed and licenses were not issued,.
The petitioner claims to have been working as a Local Level Tourist Guide only since the last one year. It is, therefore, obvious that he had not been operating as a Local Level Tourist Guide prior to the implementation of the 2011 guidelines. He is clearly not entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Santosh Baghel.
The judgment rendered by this Division Bench in 8 July 2014 in Zeeshan will also not come to the aid of the petitioner. The Division Bench, after recording the instructions received by the learned A.S.G that the Union Government has accepted the decision of the Division Bench rendered in Santosh Baghel and was working on framing guidelines for issuance of license to Local Guides, disposed of the petition in terms of that judgment. As noticed above, the judgment rendered in Santosh Baghel only granted benefit to those Local Level Tourist Guides who had been selected in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the guidelines of 2003. It did not grant benefit to those who had started operating as Local Level Tourist Guides after the implementation of the 2011 guidelines.
This apart, grant of any relief to the petitioner would not be in the interest of the tourists who would be visiting the protected monuments. The 2003 guidelines did contain conditions under which a Local Level Tourist Guide could operate. The petitioner would be able to operate as a Local Level Tourist Guide, if any direction is issued to that effect, without having been selected by the Department of Tourism. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that guides play a very important role. They have not only to provide the correct factual information to the tourists but are also concerned with the safety and well being of the tourists. It is for this reason that guidelines are required to be framed for their selection. The petitioner, if eligible, would get a chance to be selected as a Local Level Tourist Guide when the guidelines are framed.
The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to the relief claimed in this petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.