Central Information Commission
Ajay Dudi vs Ministry Of Tourism on 18 October, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
Second Appeal No.: CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/112427
CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/614623
CIC/MTOUR/A/2018/614620
Shri Ajay Duti Appellant
Versus
CPIO, M/o Tourism Respondent
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 14.11.2017, CPIO replied on 08.12.2017, FAO on 22.12.2017, Second
appeal filed on 20.03.2018, Hearing on 27.08.2018;
Proceedings on 16.05.2018: Appellant present from NIC Jaipur, Public Authority represented by
CPIO. Mr. Ranjan Lahiri, Mr. Kalyan Sengupta, Ms. Sunita. Directions for compliance and show cause
issued.
Proceedings on 27.08.2018: Appellant present from NIC Jaipur, Public Authority represented by
CPIO. Mr. Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr. Ranjan Lahiri, Mr. Kalyan Sengupta, Ms. Sunita
Tewatia present at CIC
Date of Decision - 17.10.2018: Disposed
ORDER
FACTS:
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 CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/112427/614623/614620 Page 1 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 instructions 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.
2. The Commission's order dated 03.07.2018:
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.
CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/112427/614623/614620 Page 2
(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 CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/112427/614623/614620 Page 3 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 non-renewal of license, actually is. I have received criminal threats from the Ministry. There are rape charges on many CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/112427/614623/614620 Page 4 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 CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/112427/614623/614620 Page 5 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 & Ors. V Director General, Department of Tourism and Others, 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 non- renewal 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 CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/112427/614623/614620 Page 6 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 on 27.08.2018.
Decision :
3. The appellant pointed out that the regional level guides have lost the authority to enter monuments. He suggested that the monument guides could have been regional level guides instead of eliminating or separating them. He said that a particular guide cannot enter because he is not a monument guide and without these aspects for a tourist guide are very narrow.
4. The appellant framed his arguments on three grounds: (i) Ministry of Tourism has no policy for Regional level guides (ii) there are no training programmes for guides (iii) IATO is acting as an agent in hiring tour guides. He stated that MoT renews RLG license and central ASI & state ASI (Rajasthan) counter sign it, as used to happened till ASI gazette notification dated 31-01-2017 (new comprehensive policy of ASI). In India there are 3 category of Monuments:
i. Central ASI guide with ASI license or countersign only can enter. ii. State ASI guides with state ASI license or counter sign only can enter iii. Private License issued by both ASI or MOT not allowed.
5. He stated that before this new policy was introduced by ASI in January 2017, RLG license was countersigned by central & state ASI, however now MOT would reinstate his RLG license without counter sign by central ASI & state ASI, this RLG is meaningless he would not be allowed to enter any monuments in India. He stated that MoT must ask IATO to stop using unauthorized people as tour escort or replacement of RLG. The terms like Tour escort, Trip Leader, Tour manager, Tour CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/112427/614623/614620 Page 7 Director, RLG means same and all of them do the same job. The appellant suggests that MOT/ASI should reinstate original condition of refresher course for RLG i.e no interview or test.
6. In Deepak Dan & Ors. v Director General, Department of Tourism and Ors., the appellants who were state level guides issued with licenses under the Guidelines of Department of Tourism, Government of India of the year 2003, challenged that when it came to the question of renewal of their licenses and its rejection, reliance was placed upon the Guidelines for the Selection and Grant of guide License to Regional level tourist guides, 2011 which came to be introduced on 22nd September 2011. By relying upon the aforesaid guidelines, the claims of the appellants for renewal of their licenses were rejected holding that the earlier 2003 Guidelines were superseded by 2011 Guidelines. The appellants claimed that 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.
As per 3.1.5. of 2011 Guidelines, the issuance of fresh licenses as state level guides would depend upon the standards to be applied for the issuance of such licenses to work as Regional Level guides, the same cannot be the criteria when it comes to the question of renewal of the license under 2003 Guidelines. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' applications for renewal of their Licenses 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, therefore, directed the Department of Tourism to consider the licenses of the appellants for renewal keeping in mind 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.
7. The appellant alleges that the Ministry of Tourism has given IATO (Indian association of tour operator) Tour operator unconditional discretion to bring in foreign tourist through their tours and is the main body for obtaining inputs, suggestions , data , new requirements including that of RLG (regional level guides).
CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/112427/614623/614620 Page 8
8. The officers of Ministry of Tourism referred to the letter written by Mr. T.J. Alone and submitted that the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India has framed guidelines for guides at various instances in connection with grant of licenses to guides as well as their management, training, etc. Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Tourism in the year 2003 specify 3 levels of guides viz. Regional Level Guide, State Level Guide and Local Guide. The Regional Level Guide is authorised to operate in the region which covers more than one State. The State Level Guide is authorised to operate within the limit of a State and Local Guide is authorised to operate at local level. Licences to Regional Level Guides are granted by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. On the other hand licences to State Level Guides are granted by Director of Tourism of respective State.
9. The officers referred to the letter sent by Mr. T.J. Alone, Appellate Authority who submitted that in compliance of the Supreme Court's order that directed the Ministry of Tourism to frame a comprehensive policy to be furnished by the Archaeological survey of India. The Ministry of Tourism, Government of India have also issued modified guidelines in the year 2007 as well as in 2011. However, the licences granted under the guidelines of 2003 remained active. Accordingly a comprehensive policy has been framed by the ASI with regard to grant of licences and notified on, 31.01.2017. It is further to mention here that the Archaeological survey of India (ASl) protects, preserves and maintains monuments/sites declared as of centrally protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological sites and Remains Act, 1958 on which the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological sites and Remains Rules, 1959 also applies. The Rule 8 (d) of the Rules, 1959 specifies requirement of the licence from ASI to perform guiding or monetary considerations within the premises of centrally protected monuments. As per the notification dated 20.05.2010 the power to grant licence for guiding at centrally protected monument was also shared with the Additional Director General, Department of tourism, Ministry of tourism, Government of India. The policy of ASI is intended to ensure knowledge and skill of the individual as guides to perform within the premise of centrally protected monuments. In the light of policy framed by the ASI and observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the power shared with the ADG, CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/112427/614623/614620 Page 9 Department of tourism, Ministry of tourism has been withdrawn, which only had jurisdiction with respect to centrally protected monuments. However, it does not have any effect on powers to grant licenses to Regional Level Guides or state Level Guides and Ministry of Tourism, Government of India or Department of Tourism of respective states may enjoy their powers as per their jurisdiction outside the premises of centrally protected monuments.
10. The officers stated that the appellant had an opportunity to apply for renewal of license as per policy introduced in January 2017 and his license had not expired till that date. The policy requires the applicants to undergo a training fresher course and it is to ensure better quality of tourists which directly reflect on the tourism condition of India.
11. Ms. Rashmi Verma, Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, submitted that to ensure that no damage is caused to the guides who are holding the valid RLG guide licenses, the same are being renewed by Ministry of Tourism to maintain the continuity, till a final decision is taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
12. Mr. Kalyan Dasgupta, Assistant Director General, MoT, submitted his response to the show-cause notice on 23.07.2018. He submitted that the issuance of Guide license is covered by the Policy of Ministry of Tourism issued on 22nd September,2011, under delegated powers of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASAR) Act, 1958 AMASAR Act, 1958. Pursuant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in May 2015 in the matter of by Shri Deepak Dan & Others Vs Uol in connection with UP State Level Guide Writ Petition No.4180 of 2015, ASI notified the new guide policy vide Gazette notification dated 31.01 .2017 wherein the delegated power of Addl. Director General (Tourism) to issue the guide policy and guide licenses was withdrawn. However, Hon'ble Delhi High court directed ASI and MoT to maintain the status quo and pended the new guide policy notified by ASI. ln compliance with order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the guide licenses are now being renewed/extended by MoT in consultation with ASI (Annexure-lll). Therefore, MoT provided relevant information to clear all the doubts of complainant regarding existing power to issue guide Licenses. As per the "the CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/112427/614623/614620 Page 10 Guidelines for the selection and grant of guide license to Regional Level tourist Guides (RLG)-2011" there is a specific clause regarding shopping. It is submitted that untruthfulness of the statement made by the complainant can be gathered from the fact that he mentioned that he got his license via the mode of an examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in 1996. In this connection it is stated that UPSC never conducted any examination for selection and employment of guides. The guide licenses provided by MOT on completion of successful guide course/ examination which is a voluntary scheme aimed to impart skill of informed interaction with tourists through responsible projection of the country. This is a part of capacity building scheme of Government of India. Therefore, the charge of losing job is misplaced and misleading.
13. Mr. Sengupta submitted that the licenses are renewed from Regional Tourist office or any of the field offices of MoT. A copy of the list of offices, which includes an office in Jaipur was already provided to the complainant and is also in public domain. However, as per record Shri Ajay Dudi has neither approached India Tourism, Jaipur nor Regional office in New Delhi till date, for renewal of his license.
14. The Ministry of Tourism is involved in licensing of only Regional Level Guides (RLG) who are given licenses on the basis of five zones as already defined by the Ministry of Tourism. Hence the contention of any change in policy is not true. At present there are about 3269 Regional Level Guides. As Northern Region has many states having zonal licenses gives greater coverage and mobility. By providing guide licenses, Ministry of Tourism is only facilitating guides by recognizing the training knowledge. Ministry of tourism is not involved in job placement of trained guides. Ministry of Tourism only provides the guide license and does not provide any employment. Guiding is voluntary job taken up by the individual. Since no work is allocated by Ministry of Tourism or its field offices, the question of dismissal from 4 tours does not arise. It is pertinent to mention that as per direction of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Secretary, Tourism and Culture took meeting with ASI and all stake holders to resolve the issue and the status report was submitted to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/112427/614623/614620 Page 11
15. The Commission finds that as on this date, the policy of January 2017 indicates that the Ministry of Tourism intends to create quality tourists. However, the Ministry of Tourism could not put before the Commission any concrete plans with definite timelines with respect to appointment of new regional level guides or renewal of licenses. In absence of definitive timeline, the appellant apprehends continuation of existing policy will be detrimental to young generations aspiring to become tourist guides. There is a need that the Ministry of Tourism to put in place a specific and certain program for conducting refresher courses, inviting applications and granting new licenses renewing licenses of existing tourist guides, without red tape or lethargy. The Commission directs that the process of licensing should be completely transparent to eliminate corruption or abuse of power to discriminate against some guides, as apprehended by appellant.
16. Besides above direction the Commission recommends Ministry of Tourism and Archaeological Survey of India to have fixed timeline for accepting applications for participation in fresher course, which is now a mandatory requirement for grant and renewal of guide licenses. Mr. Ranjan Lahiri, Mr. Kalyan Sengupta, Ms. Sunita Tewatia are directed to publish the schedule of dates for commencement of fresher courses and inform the appellant the procedure and time within which his regional guide license shall be renewed. The CPIOs are directed to submit a compliance report to this Commission, within 15 days.
Sd/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/112427/614623/614620 Page 12