Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Deepak Dan vs Director General, Dept Of Tourism on 1 May, 2015
Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Shiva Kirti Singh
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.4180 of 2015
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30715 of 2014)
Deepak Dan & Ors. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Director General,
Department of Tourism & Ors. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.6, Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel for the Archaeological Survey of India, Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the Ministry of Tourism and Mr. M.R. Shamshad, learned counsel for Respondent No.3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the appellants, who are State Level Guides, who were issued with licences under the Guidelines of Department of Tourism, Government of India of the year 2003, is that when it came to the question of renewal of their licences and its rejection, reliance was placed upon Paragraph Signature Not Verified 3.1.5 of the Guidelines for the Selection and Grant of Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2015.05.11 16:52:02 IST Reason: Guide License to Regional Level Tourist Guides, 2011 (for short “the 2011 Guidelines”) which came to be introduced 2 on 22nd September, 2011. By relying upon the aforesaid Paragraph, the claims of the appellants for renewal of their licences were rejected holding that the earlier Guidelines of the year 2003 were superseded.
In fact, that very issue was noted by the authorities of the Ministry of Tourism themselves, on whose behalf, an additional affidavit came to be filed in this Court on 25th August, 2010, sworn to by one Sanjay Singh in his capacity as ADG(T) and who was authorized to file the said additional affidavit on behalf of the Ministry of Tourism. In Paragraph 7 of the said affidavit, it was specifically stated that the revised Guidelines shall not have retrospective effect and that all the past actions on Guides shall be governed by the Guidelines of 2003 and 2007 as and when they were in operation.
We, thus, find perfect understanding of the status of the State Level Guides by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, who are governed by the 2003 Guidelines and who were issued with the licences under the said Guidelines. When we consider the said stand made on behalf of the Ministry of Tourism with particular reference to Paragraph 3.1.5 of 2011 Guidelines, what emerges is that while under Paragraph 3.1.5 the issuance of fresh licences as State Level Guides would depend upon the standards to be applied for issuance of such licences 3 to work as Regional Level Guides, the same cannot be the criteria when it comes to the question of renewal of the licence under the 2003 Guidelines.
Unfortunately, we find that the High Court failed to appreciate the said basic distinction while applying Paragraph 3.1.5, which resulted in the rejection of the claims made on behalf of the appellants by their associations in the impugned order.
Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel, who is appearing for the Archaeological Survey of India, however, contends that having regard to the historical background of the monuments, it is necessary that the Guides of all categories, Regional, State as well as Local, are to be apprised of important and relevant informations relating to such monuments and their knowledge of such monuments based on the facts and figures collected by the Archaeological Survey of India is to be updated in order to ensure that wrong statement about the monuments is not conveyed to the tourists while operating as Guides. We find force in the stand of the Archaeological Survey of India.
Mr. Rao further contends that the Archaeological Survey of India is in the preparation of comprehensive policy as regards the details of the monuments and how the Guides should function while guiding the tourists 4 with reference to those monuments. The Archaeological Survey of India can always publish whatever facts and figures based on such comprehensive policy, furnish the same to the Guides and their knowledge on such updated facts and figures can also be tested through the concerned authorities while considering the applications of the appellants as well as other Guides at the time of renewal. Therefore, the interest of the Archaeological Survey of India can be sufficiently protected by permitting them to furnish to the concerned authorities as to the tests to be applied at the time of renewal of licences of various categories of the Guides. If the Archaeological Survey of India has not furnished the details of such tests to be considered by the concerned authorities, the same can be directed to be furnished by them to the concerned authorities within six weeks which are to be considered at the time of the renewal of licences of the State Level Guides.
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 5 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.
..................................J. (FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA) ..................................J. (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) NEW DELHI MAY 01, 2015 6 ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).30715/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28/07/2014 in WP No. 30356/2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) DEEPAK DAN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPT OF TOURISM & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for directions and interim relief and office report) Date : 01/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, AOR Mr. Govind Jee, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
ASI Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, AOR
Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv.
Ms. Vaishali R., Adv.
Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.
Ms. Neelam Jain, Adv.
State of U.P. Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR
Mr. M.F. Khan, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Singh, Adv.
Res No.6 Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR
M/o Tourism Mr. Bharat Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal, AOR
7
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SHARDA KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)