Delhi High Court
Nathoo Lal And Ors. vs Archaeological Survey Of India on 10 October, 2007
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Issue rule. Mr. Chandershekhar, Advocate waives notice of rule. With consent of counsel these petitions were heard finally.
2. Several reliefs including orders for quashing of advertisements issued on 24.8.2000 and 12.8.2001 as well as quashing of policy guidelines dated 1.1.2003 have been sought for. However, during the course of hearing the main grievance projected by counsel for petitioners was that the respondent Archaeological Survey of India should issue identity cards to photographers of those furnished license in terms of its policy dated 1.1.2003.
3. This Court had considered the policy guidelines in the context of a challenge in an almost identical terms. The Division Bench in its order dated 30.9.2005 disposed off the matters in the following terms:
30.9.2005
Present : Mr. M. Tariq Siddiqui for the appellants.
Mr. Sanjay Jain with Ms. Ruchi Jain for the respondents.
CM 3283/2005 in LPA 706/2004
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on this application filed by the appellants praying for clarification and/or modification in the order dated 23rd November, 2004.
We have perused the said order. There was some difficulty with regard to issuance of license when the licensee is a firm/company/registered society or any proprietorship concern. In order to bring about a solution to the disputes arisen between the parties the order dated 23rd November, 2004 was passed that when an application for issue of photography license for taking still photographs inside the Taj Mahal is made by a firm/company/registered society or any proprietorship concern, a person nominated by them in this behalf would be issued the requisite license as an authorised representative of the said establishment. It was also made clear that as and when the said representative ceases or disassociates himself with the concerned establishment, he would not be entitled to operate under the aforesaid license. It is, however, now pointed out that although a license is issued but the identity card is not being issued by the respondents.
Having gone through the records and having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we hold that in case of a firm/company/registered society or any proprietorship concern, the license shall be issued in the name of the said firm/company/registered society of the proprietorship concern but the name of the person, who is nominated to take photographs on behalf of the said firm/company/registered society or the proprietorship concern, would be given in the identity card with the latest photograph embossed in the identity card itself. In the event the said nominated representative disassociates or for any reason leaves (or is removed), the firm/company/registered society or the proprietorship concern, the said nominated person would not be entitled to operate under the said license and in that even the firm/company/registered society or the proprietorship concern shall inform the respondents about the aforesaid change and complete the formalities when a fresh license with an identity card shall be issued in favor of the said authorised representative. It is, however, made clear that this order is passed in respect of policy which is still existing and would be operating in respect of those license which are being issued under the existing policy. Application stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
4. Mr. Siddiqui contends that proprietorship licenses, under the present dispensation are placed at a distinct disadvantage because the employee photographers of firms and companies, are allowed to operate by issuance of a separate identity cards. However, in the case of such proprietor concerns the licensee/photographer himself is issued the identity card which would imply that he should be present at the monument and carry on the profession of photography.
5. Learned Counsel contended that the fact that the proprietors are allowed to operate would show that they are at par with companies and proprietorship firms. Therefore, proprietors too should have been given the same facilities of issuance of an identity card to their photographers.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the order of the court and the policy and submitted that the object of the revised guidelines/circular was to ensure that only one person duly authorised could work out or pursue the license as a photographer at the monument. Reliance was placed on Clause (iii) and (viii). It was also contended that policy was upheld by the order of this Court dated 23.11.2004 and 30.9.2005. Therefore this petition is not maintainable.
7. From the above facts it is evident that the petitioners are seeking to agitate issues which are essentially within the policy domain of the Archaeological Survey of India. Besides the fact that they have approached the court belatedly, as the policy in question was framed in 2000-2001, the matter in my view stands concluded by the order dated 30.9.2005 quoted above. The apprehensions and grievances of the petitioner licensees who originally approached the court were that companies and firms were treated differently. Therefore this Court clarified that only one license and one identity card would be issued to a firm/company since they were artificial personalities. However, the same logic in my view cannot be extended in the case of sole proprietorship concerns. There, the licensee would be the photographer entitled to visit the monument on the basis of the license. In these circumstances there is nothing wrong in the insistence that the identity card too would be issued to the licensee and none else.
8. As to what manner in which the licensee organises its business i.e. as a firm or company would be worked out on the choice of model most preferable to the concerned persons. The matter can be looked in another manner. In case the proprietors or any body of them feels that the existing policy places him at a disadvantage, it is open to them to approach the respondents and seek appropriate change in the policy guidelines or a clarification to enable the licensee to send an employee, even while sitting in an office himself. However, having regard to the overall nature of the scheme, the condition cannot be termed arbitrary or unreasonable.
9. In view of the above I am of the opinion that the reliefs cannot be granted in these proceedings.
10. The writ petitions have to therefore fail; they are, accordingly dismissed. No costs.
