- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ajay Dudi v. Public Information Officer, Ministry Of Tourism
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Ajay Dudi, a licensed guide since 1996 in Jaipur, sought information through RTI applications regarding the authority and procedures for issuing and renewing guide licenses within Centrally Protected Monuments. This inquiry arose due to conflicting policies and delegation of authority between the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), particularly following a Gazette Notification dated 31.01.2017. The appellant filed multiple RTI requests and appeals after receiving incomplete or unsatisfactory information from the concerned public authorities. The dispute involves the renewal of guide licenses, jurisdictional ambiguities, and allegations of corruption and harassment. The appellant ultimately filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) after delays and partial responses from the CPIOs of both departments.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Ministry of Tourism and Culture or the Archaeological Survey of India holds the authority to issue and renew guide licenses for Centrally Protected Monuments following the Gazette Notification dated 31.01.2017.
- Clarification on the procedural requirements and jurisdiction for license renewal, including submission locations and deadlines.
- Reasons for the delegation of licensing powers from ASI to the Ministry of Tourism in 2003 and the subsequent withdrawal of those powers back to ASI in 2016-2017.
- Whether information regarding guides taking clients to shopping as per travel agents' itinerary falls within the ambit of the RTI Act.
- Addressing complaints of corruption, harassment, and maladministration related to guide licensing processes.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant contended that the inconsistent delegation and withdrawal of licensing powers between ASI and the Ministry of Tourism have caused significant professional harm, including the loss of his license and livelihood.
- He alleged systemic corruption involving bribes for obtaining or renewing licenses and expressed frustration over obstruction and harassment by officials and associations linked to the ministries.
- The appellant detailed personal hardships, including legal battles, threats to his safety and family, and the detrimental impact on the tourism sector and professional guides.
- He sought transparency regarding the rationale behind policy shifts and licensing authority changes to prevent recurrence of such issues for others.
Respondents' Arguments
- The CPIO of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture stated that the guide policy issued by ASI on 31.01.2017 is subjudice and that the Ministry had instructed renewal of existing regional level guide licenses until March 2018.
- The Ministry contended that certain information sought, particularly reasons behind policies and opinions, did not fall within the scope of the RTI Act and characterized some queries as requests for clarification rather than information.
- The CPIO of ASI explained delays in providing information due to office relocation but eventually provided relevant information on the licensing policy and stay orders from the High Court.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Deepak Dan v. Director General, Department of Tourism (Order dated 01.05.2015) | Directed Ministry of Tourism to consider renewal of licenses issued under Department of Tourism Guidelines, 2003 during pendency of challenge to 2011 Guidelines. | The court referenced this precedent to contextualize the appellant's licensing situation and the ongoing regulatory changes affecting guide licenses. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Commission analyzed the conflicting information provided by the two public authorities. The Ministry of Tourism claimed authority to renew guide licenses until March 2018 despite the ASI's Gazette Notification asserting that ASI is the competent authority for such renewals. The ASI confirmed the policy and attached the Gazette Notification and noted a stay order by the Delhi High Court on the policy. The Commission observed ambiguity and equivocality in the responses, highlighting jurisdictional confusion between the two departments. The appellant's detailed submissions underscored the practical and legal difficulties arising from this confusion, including allegations of corruption and harassment. Recognizing these issues, the Commission treated the RTI requests as complaints about maladministration and directed the departments to explain the shifting of powers and provide an action taken report. The Commission also initiated show-cause proceedings for delayed and denied information and recommended higher-level intervention to resolve the interdepartmental feud harming guides and the tourism industry.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF
The Commission disposed of the second appeal by issuing directions to the Ministry of Tourism and ASI to clarify and justify the shifting of authority regarding guide licensing. It ordered both departments to treat the RTI applications as complaints and provide action taken reports within 30 days. Further, show-cause notices were issued to the concerned CPIOs for delay and denial of information and for causing harassment by shifting responsibility between departments. The Commission recommended that the Secretary of the Ministry of Tourism review the ongoing conflict between the two departments and take remedial steps to address the appellant’s grievances and systemic issues affecting the tourism sector. No new legal precedent was established; the decision primarily addressed administrative transparency, accountability, and interdepartmental coordination to protect the rights of licensed guides and the integrity of the licensing process.
1. The appellant sought information on 9 points: (i) Gazette notification dated 31.01.2017 with subject Policy for Archaeological Survey of India guides to perform within Centrally protected Monuments, after this notification the Ministry got authority to issued new guide license and to renew existing guide license, whether the Ministry is still renewing existing guide license (ii) Does he have to get his guide license by Ministry Of Tourism, Government Of India or any of its department or ASI (iii) If Ministry Of Tourism or any of its department still renewing above guide license even after the Gazette Notification of ASI then provide the reason in detail (iv) if Ministry is renewing, what is the last date for submission of it and where it needs to be submitted (v) can a person from Jaipur submit above license for renewal at India Tourism office in Jaipur (vi) if no, provide reason in detail (vii) reason as to why after 1996 ASI delegated its power to make guides for its monuments to Ministry Of Tourism (viii) reason as to why ASI has to take power to make guides for its monuments back from Ministry Of Tourism vide gazette notification dated 31-01-2017 (ix) if there is any opinion/rule regarding guides taking clients to shopping as per travel agents itinerary/condition. The CPIO replied on 08.12.17 with an answer to points 1 to 5 that the guide policy of 31.01.2017 is sub-judice, however, Ministry of Tourism has issued instruction to all Regional Director for renewal of existing Regional level guide license till March 2018. He stated that information sought under points 8 and 9 are not covered in the RTI act. Vide order dated 22.12.2017, the FAA order directed the CPIO to provide the copy of the stay order of the High Court regarding the renewal of licenses, instructions of renewal of licenses and zonal jurisdiction of the RDs issued by Ministry of Tourism. The part of the RTI which pertains to ASI has been transferred. The appellant still not satisfied filed second appeal.
Decision :
2. The appellant, Ajay Dudi was a licensed guide in Jaipur who gained his license to be a guide in 1996. After disturbances from the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and Archaeological Survey of India regarding the policies which have been delegated to each other, the power to renew the guide licenses was unclear. Mr. Ajay Dudi, on (date) filed an RTI application to the Ministry of Tourism and Culture seeking information on the following points:
(i) Gazette Notification dated 31.01.17 with subject ‘The Policy for Archaeological Survey of India Guides to perform Within Centrally Protected Monuments’. After this notification only authority to issue new guide license & to renew existing guide license is ASI. Is Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Government of India or its any department still renewing the existing guide license?
(ii) Do I have to get my above guide license by Ministry of Tourism & Culture, Government of India or any of its department or ASI?
(iii) If Ministry of tourism & Culture, Government of India or any of its department still renewing above guide license even after the Gazette Notification of ASI then provide the reason in detail.
(iv) If Ministry of tourism & Culture, Government of India or any of its department still renewing above guide license then what is the last date of it and where it needs to be submitted.
(v) If Ministry of tourism & Culture, Government of India or any of its department still renewing above guide license then can a person from Jaipur submit above license for renewal at India Tourism office in Jaipur.
(vi) If answer to point 5 is no, then provide reason.
(vii) Provide reason as to why ASI has to take power to make guides for its monuments to Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Government of India.
(viii) Provide reason as to why ASI has to take power to make guides for its monuments back from Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Government of India vide Gazette notification dated 31.01.17.
(ix) Does if Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Government of India or any of its department has any opinion/rule regarding guides taking clients to shopping as per travel agents itinerary/condition.
3. The CPIO from Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Mr. Kalyan Sengupta replied on 08.12.17 with an answer to points 1 to 5. The CPIO stated in regard to points 1 - 5 that “The Guide policy issued by Archaeological of India vide Gazette Notification dated 31.01.2017 is subjudice. However, Ministry of Tourism has issued instruction to all Regional Director, India Tourism Offices, in India for renewal of existing Regional level guide license till March, 2018.” The points 6 and 7 do not arise in the answer to the points 1 to 5. The information under points 8 and 9 were denied by the CPIO stating that they were covered under the RTI Act, 2005. Hence nil information. Mr. Ajay not satisfied with the information filed an appeal.
4. The First Appellate Authority order from the Ministry of Tourism and Culture on 22.12.2017 directed the CPIO to provide the Copy of the stay order of the Hon'ble High Court, the instructions for renewal of licenses and the zonal jurisdiction of the RDs issued by Ministry of Tourism. The order also stated that “Since part of your question pertains to ASI which is the separate public authority, it is requested that the application on the questions pertaining to ASI may be sent directly to ASI. Meanwhile a copy of your appeal is being marked to ASI for provision of information directly to you.”
5. Subsequently on 14.11.17 he filed another RTI raising the same questions to the Archaeological Survey of India. The CPIO from the ASI did not reply within the stipulated time of 30 days. The Appellant filed an appeal in the First Appellate Authority order. No order was passed by the First Appellate Authority. The appellant then filed second appeal on 20.03.18 to the CIC.
6. After the notice of the hearing of the second appeal at CIC was given to the respondent authorities, The CPIO provided information on 10.05.18 wherein she provided information on points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7. The CPIO stated for points 1 and 2 “As per Tourist Guide Policy vide Gazette Notification dated 31.01.17 for centrally protected monuments, the license is to be renewed by the Competent Authority of Archaeological Survey of India. However, it is also to inform that at present there is a stay order by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on Tourist Guide Policy Gazette Notification dated 31.01.2017 for centrally protected monuments. The Copy of the Gazette Notification dated 31.01.17 for the said policy is enclosed for information.” For points 5 and 6 the CPIO stated “information seeking on the point ‘why’ does not fall within the ambit of RTI Act.”
7. At the Second Appeal's hearing today, the CPIO of the Archaeological Survey of India and the CPIO of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture were present. The CPIO of the Archaeological Survey of India submitted that since there was a shift in their office location the proceedings and action taken against the concerned RTI Application was delayed by over 5 months. After the stable establishment of their new office, the information sought was provided by the Public Authority.
8. The CPIO of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture submitted that the information provided by them was under the stipulated time. The information provided by them for points 1 - 5 was proper whereas the information provided by them under points 6 - 9 was not given due to the reason of it being not covered under RTI. The CPIO submitted that the query arisen is a clarification rather than the seeking of information.
9. After a study of the facts and queries raised, it is quite observant that there still exists an element of ambiguity in the information provided by both the CPIOs under points 1 - 5. The equivocality being that in the reply given by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, dated 08.12.17, the CPIO claimed that “the Ministry of Tourism has issued instruction to all Regional Director, India Tourism offices, in India, for renewal of existing Regional level guide license till March 2018.” Which indicates that the Ministry of Tourism has the authority to renew guide licenses, whereas in the reply given by the CPIO of Archaeological Survey of India it is stated that, “As per the Tourist Guide Policy vide Gazette Notification dated 31.01.2017 for centrally protected monuments, the license is to be renewed by the Competent Authority of Archaeological Survey of India.”
10. In the hearing the appellant, Mr. Ajay Dudi was asked for his submission. His statement was rather appalling in nature. Mr. Ajay Dudi submitted that:
“I am very disturbed and tired of the practices the 2 Authorities have managed to pull off, that too for a very long period. I have lost my job as a licensed guide because of this amiable but detrimental relationship of ASI and Ministry of Tourism. Both the public authorities rather than working for the interest of the public, are blatantly obstructing information. I got my license via the mode of an examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. I got my license in 1996. For the first 3 crucial years of my career, I spent a majority of my time in the courts because the Authorities wouldn't let me do my job. The Police does not allow us to practice our profession without any hindrance. There are, on average, 3 cases per year which arise due to the incompetent and shifting of authority issue with the 2 departments in question. In, 2014 there was a police investigation too. I have filed numerous complaints with the Authorities, but they were all rejected for frivolous reasons. I had no other option but to resort to litigation. At first the ASI delegated its power to grant and renew guide license to the Ministry of Tourism and then a few years later they withdrew that power from the Ministry. Bribes are taken by the officers to grant/renew licenses. Corruption in this regard is so deeply imbibed that it is very difficult to be removed. MOT asked us for evidences on this matter and other malpractices which included child labour and generation of money in violation of FCRA regulations. We provided them all the documentary evidences and sought relief. MOT inquired into the matter and instead of addressing issues closed it in agents favour for obvious reasons overlooking all documentary evidences and after that started harassing us for raising these complaints via agents association and different associations. The Hon'ble court recommended the development of a policy to resolve these issues so that no such petitions are further raised in the court. After the policy formed in 2011, 220 people have been given licenses, because they bribed the officials. When the 3 pillars of the government, i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary are all malfunctioning in this regard, all the assistance that people like me seek are rendered useless. I have faced many grievances. The information that I'm seeking is to prove how baseless my termination of job, due to nonrenewal of license, actually is. I have received criminal threats from the Ministry. There are rape charges on many guides under them, who have been given their licenses after bribing the officials. They are ruining the careers of youths. The ministry has destroyed the tourism sector and converted the whole business to prostitution. They conduct training courses where curriculum is published something else and in classes we are told the benefits of drinking, we must have drinks, sex etc. There agents conduct training where they ask guides to keep clients happy at any cost including sleeping with them etc. and MOT is fine with it. A person who has not bribed the officers in these public authorities simply cannot function as a guide. Instead of using the state based machinery to provide assistance, they are using this very machinery for malafide intentions on me and my family. I have received threats from the ministry that if I don't comply with them they will murder my 5 year old daughter and 14 year old son. The ‘Rajputs’ (the majority caste in the residential area of the appellant) of my area were asked by these ministry people to disturb me and cause harm. I have had to explain to judges in my first 3 years why I should be allowed to work even after being completely eligible for the license. We got Regional level guides license in 1996 and today MOT & ASI together want to demote us to monument guides. This will practically kill everything for us and that is why more information under RTI was sought regarding this as they were not sharing this detail with us. Already on an average guides have to file at least three litigations in court of law to ensure they keep getting assignments honestly. This time they are doing only to help shop keepers but at the cost of tourism blatantly hiding lot of information from courts and using courts to twist our arms. Initially they issued regional guide licenses, but now after 20 years they have redacted that whole policy and now only grant Zonal licenses. My license has been rendered completely useless. A person at my stage has to start all over again. Senseless drama and Nautanki done by these officers is absolutely futile. As I told you, there are 3 cases on average on these high posted officials. I have no option now, to ensure my and my family's safety, but to submit to their unreasonable and bully-like attitude. I have given up now. A Director level officer, here in Jaipur, tells people to drive all the way to Delhi to get a re-stamp on their license applications. He has also asked for bribes from the applicants of these licenses. The only information I now seek is that, what is the reason that the ASI has delegated the license renewing power to the Ministry and why did they later redacted it. I am not doing this for myself. My career has been destroyed. I have no economic, social or professional assistance left now. I am seeking this information via the tool of RTI to ensure that no other person in my situation ever has to deal with this non-sense again.”
11. He explained how his life is ruined his license not renewed and because of that his career is ruined. He also complained that the dept is using the association of guides to threaten him with dire consequences to him, his son and daughter. The guides in Rajasthan are about 6000 today. They are compelled to pay bribe or approach the ministries through influential persons. He has provided the copies of the Civil Court Cases relating to the matter (D.B. Special Appeal (WRIT) No. 95/2009) and the complaints filed by him to the Regional Director (North), Ministry of Tourism, Assistant Director, Ministry of Tourism, and Assistant Director, India Tourism. These complaints were filed against the malpractices followed by the officers at these places. The unreasonable grounds upon which the appellant was dismissed after his services were booked for 4 trips, were the reasons for these complaints wherein the issue of corruption was raised quite markedly by the appellant.
12. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of state level guides who were issued with licenses under the Guidelines of Department of Tourism, 2003 and during the pendency of petition challenging the Guidelines of Ministry of 2011; they approached the Ministry of Tourism for renewal of their licenses. In Deepak Dan v. Director General, Department of Tourism, vide order dated 01.05.2015, the Supreme Court directed the Director General, Ministry of Tourism to consider the licenses of the appellants for renewal. The Ministry of Culture published Gazette Notification dated 31.01.2017 stating the policy for the guides to perform within Centrally Protected Monuments.
13. The powers were withdrawn from the Ministry of Tourism vide Office Memorandum F. No. 33-35/2016-M of Archaeological Survey of India dated 07.09.2016. The powers for issuing guide license, approval ad registration of the qualified persons selected through due process by a committee constituted for the purpose to operate in the protected monuments of national importance were delegated to the Additional Director General, Ministry of Tourism vide notification dated 21.01.2003. The said powers were withdrawn from the Ministry of Tourism and restored with ASI on 07.09.2016. The Ministry of Culture (Archaeological Survey of India) published Gazette Notification dated 31.01.2017 stating the policy for the guides to perform within Centrally Protected Monuments. The High Court vide order dated 21.08.2017 ordered stay on the impugned policy dated 31.01.2017.
14. This RTI is a complaint against corruption and illegal reasoning for nonrenewal of his license to be a guide and through his application, he has raised the following issues:
i. Why regional guides are being replaced by zonal one.
ii. Why thousands of guides are being asked to come to Delhi to get stamps on the application of renewal of license. Only to collect 500 bribe.
iii. Why don't you do it Jaipur.
iv. Expressing his frustration. On the 2 departments functioning of.. resulting in the destruction of tourism industry in India, he openly demanded to officialise/legalise the bribe, fix the rates. At least that would be a solution continuing some system in the 2 dept.
v. Why the department of ASI handed over its power to appoint/license the guides to the tourism dept. in 2003 and why it was taken back in 2017
vi. Who will be responsible for the damage caused to the guides because of this unthoughtful shifting of power between the 2 depts. And what is the solution.
15. In view of the above, the Commission gives the following directions:
i. Directs department of tourism and ASI to explain reasons for a shifting of power/responsibility for appointing or framing policies for the guides between them.
ii. To consider the RTI applications of this applicant as a complaint and directs to provide an action taken report in 30 days
iii. To show-cause why maximum penalty be not imposed on Ms. Sunita Tewatia, CPIO, ASI, Mr. Ranjan Lahiri, CPIO, Ministry of Tourism and Mr. Kalyan Sengupta, CPIO as on 14.11.2017 for a delay and denial of info sought besides harassing the appellant by kicking the matter into each other's courts.
16. The Commission also recommends Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, Government of India to review the feud between the 2 departments harming the guides and the tourism industry and inform the appellant about the steps taken to resolve the problem reflected in his appeal. The Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, Government of India is also recommended to seriously consider the problem pointed out by the appellant that the policies of the Ministry are compelling the guides and others to file 3 court cases each year because of which the activities are slowing down.
17. The CPIOs are directed to submit their explanation, before 03.08.2018 and the matter is posted for compliance and penalty proceedings to 27.08.2018.
Alert