Amir Khan And 100 Others vs Union Of India And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4048 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14921 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Amir Khan And 100 Others
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tawvab Ahmed Khan,Sameer Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Heard Sri T.A.Khan along with Sri Sameer Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.6.

Present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2, Director General Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi or any Authority competent defined under Rule-8(d) of the Rules of 1959 i.e. "The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959" to endorse the licenses of petitioners as State level Guides for the working over Protected Monuments in lieu of the selection made by Ministry of Culture/Tourism State of U.P. in pursuance to the advertisement dated 18.6.2012.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working of petitioners as State level Guides over the Protected Monuments selected by the State of U.P. through Ministry of Culture/Tourism in lieu of the advertisement dated 18.6.2012.

III. Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State of U.P. through Ministry of Tourism/Culture i.e. respondent no.6 to collect the lincenses issued in the year 2012 itself and renewed up to 2019 in favour of the petitioners and sent to the respondent no.2, Director General Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi for its approval/endorsement of the licenses of petitioners.

IV. Issue any other writ, order to direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

V. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners."

Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is fully covered by Writ Petition No. 10206 of 2022 (Santosh Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others). The order dated 28.4.2022 of the aforesaid petition is quoted hereinunder:-

"Heard Sri T.A.Khan along with Sri Sameer Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed this writ petition for following reliefs:-

I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2, Director General Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi or any Authority competent defined under Rule-8(d) of the Rules of 1959 i.e. "The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959" to endorse the licenses of petitioners as State level Guides for the working over Protected Monuments in lieu of the selection made by Ministry of Culture/Tourism State of U.P. in pursuance to the advertisement dated 18.6.2012.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working of petitioners as State level Guides over the Protected Monuments selected by the State of U.P. through Ministry of Culture/Tourism in lieu of the advertisement dated 18.6.2012.

III. Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State of U.P. through Ministry of Tourism/Culture i.e. respondent no.6 to collect the lincenses issued in the year 2012 itself and renewed up to 2019 in favour of the petitioners and sent to the respondent no.2, Director General Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi for its approval/endorsement of the licenses of petitioners.

IV. Issue any other writ, order to direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

V. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners.

At the very outset both the parties agree thta the present writ petition can be disposed of in the light of order dated 31.7.2019 passed in Writ-C No.32569 of 2018, Arvind Singh and 100 others Vs. Union of India and 5 other which is quoted as under:-

"The petitioners claim that they hold licence for State Level Guide. They have preferred this writ petition amongst other mainly for the following relief:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 2 Director General Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi or any Authority competent defined under Rule 8 d of the Rules of 1959 i.e. "The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rule, 1959" to endorse the licenses of the petitioners as State level guides for the working over protected monuments in lieu of the selection made by the Ministry of Culture/ Tourism State of U.P. in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 18.06.2012."

A Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.34704 of 2014, Ajay Kumar Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 09th July, 2014 has taken a view that the State level guides are not entitled for the licence and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order a special leave petition, being SLP(C) No. 30715 of 2014, Deepak Dan and others v. Director General, Department of Tourism and others, was filed. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court in the following terms:

"Having regard to our above conclusion on the applicability of Paragraph 3.1.5 of the 2011 Guidelines vis-a-vis the licences issued based on the Guidelines of the year 2003 as well as 2007, we are convinced that the appellants' applications for renewal of their licences which were issued based on the 2003 Guidelines should be considered on its own merits and also by applying the tests which the Archaeological Survey of India wants to update and furnish by way of comprehensive policy by publishing the same widely and by communicating it to the concerned authorities. It is stated that the appellants have already applied for renewal of their licences. We, therefore, direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the licences of the appellants for renewal keeping in mind the above observations as well as the prescriptions which are required to be taken into account based on the comprehensive policy to be furnished by the Archaeological Survey of India and pass orders within eight weeks from today.

The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed on the above terms."

Following the direction of the Supreme Court we find that the grievance of the petitioners can be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

Our attention has also been drawn to an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the similar circumstances in Writ-C No. 44573 of 2016, Shwetank Rao and others v. Union of India and others, dated 17th September, 2016. Relevant part of the order is extracted below:

"We, therefore, dispose of the present writ petition permitting the petitioners to represent their grievances before respondent no. 3 and file documents in support of such matter, as they may be advised. The respondent no. 3 shall consider the renewal of licence in conformity with the order of this court in Government Approved Tourist Guides Association (supra) and the directions of the Apex Court in Deepak Dan (supra) as well as guidelines which may now be issued by the Archaeological Survey of India. The Courts has been informed that the guidelines have been framed and circulated by the Archaeological Survey of India and has been published under the letter dated 7th September, 2016.

The entire exercise shall be completed and necessary action shall be taken by respondent no. 3 preferably with a period of eight weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

Disposed of."

This writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms. Accordingly, we grant liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate application before the competent authority. In the event any such application is made along with certified copy of this order within two weeks from the date of communication of this order, the same shall be considered in accordance with law in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, expeditiously within three weeks thereafter."

However, Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 5 while drawing attention to prayer clause 3 submitted that the petitioners have not approached the authority concerned and have not deposited their licence.

In reply learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the application/representation shall be preferred by the petitioners in accordance with law within two weeks from today.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above quoted order as well as undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners."

However, at this stage, Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioners have approached the authority concerned and their claim has already been forwarded by the State Government to the respondent no. 2-Director General (Ministry of Tourism), New Delhi.

In such view of the matter, present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment with an observation that the authority concerned shall also take note of the aforesaid fact.

Order Date :- 25.5.2022

Lalit Shukla