Delhi High Court
Davendra Singh Sandhu And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 January, 2016
Author: Manmohan
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 644/2016 & C.M.No.2630/2016
DAVENDRA SINGH SANDHU AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Ms.Anjana Gosain with Mr.Vishu
Agrawal, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Umesh Sharma, CGSC with
Mr.Birjesh Chaudhary, Advocate for
R- 1, 2 & 4.
% Date of Decision : 25th January, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the
advertisement dated 9th January, 2016, whereby the respondent no.2 has
published the requirement of number of Guides along with eligibility
criteria. The said advertisement stipulates the requirement for Northern
Region to be 284, Southern Region to be 90, Western Central Region to
be 87, Eastern Region to be 411 and North-Eastern Region to be 40.
2. Ms. Anjana Gosain, learned counsel for the petitioner states
that the requirement of number of Guides is much higher due to the
growth of tourism in our country. She states that the respondents have
failed to take into account the fact that there has been an increase of
3.2% in inbound foreign tourists and increase of 11.9% of domestic
tourists.
3. Ms. Anjana Gosain further contends that the respondents have
no reason to limit the number of Guides as they are self-employed and
are carrying on a private profession. She relies upon the observations
of this Court in Anuj Johri Vs. Union of India, 118 (2005) DLT 418,
wherein it has been held as under:-
"27. There is however substantial justification for the
respondents to limit the number of licensed Guides, as the
same is imperative to have sustained development of tourism.
In case, there are too many licensed Guides to show people
around the monument, it could lead to over crowding, chaos
and unhealthy competition being detrimental for the industry
and profession itself. A dissatisfied Guide far from promoting
tourism could adversely affect the tourism scenario and the
image of the country. The requisite number of Regional-level
Guides to be licensed and assessed would also depend upon
the tourists travelling to India and the profile of such tourists.
Any detailed discussion on this aspect is not necessary as the
respondents have neither notified number of vacancies for
Tourist Guides licenses nor have limited the same as of now.
The respondents while assessing and determining the number
of licensed Guides required in the region would need to assess
the flow of tourists, number of monuments, available licensed
Guides, growth potential and all other relevant factors. In
case, the determination is done in an irrational or arbitrary
manner or is disregard of the relevant factors and criteria, it
would be subject to challenge as arbitrary, irrational and not
falling within reasonable restriction."
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states
that the increase in the number of Guides has been arrived at on the
basis of a formula that was agreed upon in a meeting held on 17 th
December, 2012. He states that the increase of inbound foreign tourists
and domestic tourists has been factored into while determining the
aforesaid number of Guides. He states that but for the increase in the
number of tourists there would have been no increase in number of
guides.
5. A perusal of the file reveals that the number of tourist guides
has been calculated on the basis of a formula that was agreed upon by
all the relevant stakeholders in its meeting held on 17th December,
2012. The relevant portion of the minutes of the said meeting is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"A meeting was chaired by ADG (T) on 17.12.2012 with the
Director, IITTM; all domestic RDs; travel trade associations
& TFGI to assess the exact requirement of RLG in all the
regions. In the meeting, the domestic RDs were requested to
submit the total number of active and inactive RLF at present
in the respective regions and their language and age-wise
profiles. As per the data submitted by the RDs there are 2499
RLG in India at present. It was also decided to put together a
formula based on foreign tourist arrivals to various regions in
India and RLG available in all regions. The formula has been
devised as follows:
I. Absolute number of tourist arrivals from a particular
country in a particular region (on the basis of major ports of
entry) =
Total number of tourist arrivals X % of tourist arrivals
particular country to India from that country
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Percentage of tourist arrivals from a particular country in a
region =
Absolute number of tourist arrivals in a particular region
------------------------------------------------------------------ X 100
Total number of tourist arrivals from particular country
to India
III. The number of tourist arrivals from a country to the other
(minor) ports of entry was distributed amongst the
geographical regions on pro rata basis.
IV. The requirement of RLG in a particular region =
Total number of RLG in India X % of tourist arrivals from a
particular country to India X % of tourist arrivals from that
country in that region."
6. In the opinion of this Court, determination of a formula to
determine the number of guides has to be left to the Executive, who in
their wisdom can take a decision that they deem appropriate. It is trite
law that the officials of the Ministry as well as the members of the
Trade are the experts and the Courts are normally reluctant to interfere
with a formula that has been arrived at after taking into consideration
the views of the relevant stakeholders, like the Regional Directors,
Travel Trade Associations and Tourism Guide Federation of India.
7. Though, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the domestic growth has not been taken into account, yet this Court
finds and as rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents,
that the increase of inbound foreign tourists and domestic tourists has
been factored into while determining the aforesaid number of Guides.
8. This Court is also of the view that the Government has to
ensure that only sufficient number of good Guides are available. There
cannot be a 'mindless increase' in the number of Guides on the ground
that it is a self-employed profession because their oversupply would
lead to problems like unhealthy competition and over-crowding.
9. Consequently, this Court is of the view that it is for the
Executive to determine the number of Guides to whom the licences can
be issued. The petitioners have failed to show that either the formula or
the determination of number of Guides has been done in an irrational
and arbitrary manner or in disregard of relevant factors and criteria.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition and the application are dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
JANUARY 25, 2016
KA
