JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred this review petition before this Court against the order dated 22.2.1990, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1494/1985, by then Hon'ble S.S. Byas, J. The review petition was listed before the then Hon'ble Byas, J. on 2.4.1990, and the directions were given that notices be issued to the non-petitioners. Sometime in May or June, 1990, Hon'ble S.S. Byas, J. had retired. As such this review petition was listed before Hon'ble the Chief justice on 22.8.1990 and Hon'ble the Chief Justice was pleased to issue order in favour of the petitioner and directed that in the meantime, the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge, is stayed. Today, this review petition is listed before me as directed in the order dated 19.4.1991. The Central Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, was enacted to provide for the preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance, for the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of sculptures carvings and other like objects. Under Section 3 and 4 of the aforesaid Act, the Central Government, is authorised to declare certain monuments deemed to be of national importance. Under the Act of 1961, the State is having to declare any ancient and historical monuments situated in the State of Rajasthan. Under both the Acts, namely the Central as well as the State Act, the rule for grant of licence/identity card and authorisation letter provided that a person under the authority or licence can act as a guide to describe about the history of the ancient monuments to the visitors. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that they are having the licence/ identity card, under the Central Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and can perform the duty of guide. 3. The case of the respondents is that it is necessary for the Central guides also to obtain licence under the Act of 1961 and the Rules made therein and a State guide will have a better specialisation in the matter of State Monuments. 3. The case of the respondents is that it is necessary for the Central guides also to obtain licence under the Act of 1961 and the Rules made therein and a State guide will have a better specialisation in the matter of State Monuments. This controversy was considered by the then Justice S.S. Byas, and directions were issued that in future the provisions of Rule 8 (d) of Rajasthan Monuments and Archaeological Sites Antiquities Rules, 1968, and further directions were given not to allow unauthorised persons to contact with the visitors/ tourists.It will not be out of place here to mention that in the 3rd stay-application, which was filed by the present non-petitioners, who were the parties in the main writ petition, have specifically been mentioned in para 2 of the review petition that the aforesaid licence/ identify cards are being granted by the Director and Superintendent, Archaeology, Govt. of Rajasthan, and on the basis of the aforesaid identify card/licence the person can show sites of the ancient monument for monetory consideration. The State Government, on the basis of the counter-signature done by the non-petitioner No. 3, on the authorisation letter, i.e., licence/identity card, issued by the department, under the Government of India, can show the ancient monuments. The counter signature might have been prevelant earlier and this fact is evident from the application moved by the present non-petitioners who were petitioner in the main writ petition. On 10th July, 1989, directions were given by this Court in the stay-application which are reproduced by the petitioner in para 2, of the review petition. It is not necessary for me to reproduce the directions. Further I will mention that there is a reference of the counter signature on the identity card in the said stay-order. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the review petition has invited my attention to (Anx.-2) and submitted that there is a system of counter-signature and the State Govt., has adopted the system of counter-signature to accord authorisation. 4. Mr. Dalip Singh, learned counsel for the non-petitioners submitted that (Anx.-2) was only relevant for the year 1989 and it has seized (ceased) to have any force thereafter. Mr. Dalip Sing, submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the review petition is not maintainable. I will not like to go into details of the case. Mr. Dalip Sing, submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the review petition is not maintainable. I will not like to go into details of the case. The law is well settled that the review petition can be filed before the same Judge and shall be heard before the same Judge who had passed the order. There is an exception that in case, the Judge, who had passed the order or seized (ceased) the office and on account of retirement or death, then the review petition can be heard by any Judge, who is nominated by the Hon'ble Chief justice to hear the review petition. In the instant case, Hon'ble the then Byas, J. who had retired after filing of the review petition. It will not be out of place here to mention that he had entertained it for hearing before his retirement by passing an order that the notices be issued. Hon'ble the Chief Justice, has passed the specific order on 19.4.91, that this review petition should be heard by me. As far as the authority to hear the review petition is concerned, there is no difficulty in it and I will have to dispose of the review petition. There was no necessity to pass any order whatsoever as the Hon'ble the then Byas, J. had specifically passed that Rule 8(d) of the aforesaid Rules, has to be complied with. There is a confusion in the mind of the parties about the interpretation of Rule 8(d) of the Rules. The State Government, has supported the case of the present petitioner and submitted that the system of counter signature should be construed as an authority under Rule 8(d) , of the Rules. 5. I have perused the judgment and have also gone through the Rule 8(d) of the Rules of the Rajasthan Monuments and Archaeological Sites Antiquites Rules, 1968, which is as under: Rule -8(d) "Hawk or sell goods or wares or canvass any cystinger for such goods or wares or display any advertisement in any form so a visitor round for monetary consideration, except under the authority of or under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by the Director or Supdt. of Archaeology Government of Rajasthan." Rule 8(d) provides two modes. of Archaeology Government of Rajasthan." Rule 8(d) provides two modes. The first mode is to show a visitor round for monetary consideration under the authority of the Director/Superintendent, Archaeology Depptt. and the second mode is that under a licence granted by the Director/Superintendent of Archaeology, Government of Rajasthan. Thus, the two modes are provided and the word 'or' has been used under Rule 8(d) of the Rules. The permission can be accorded in any way either by the grant of licence or by the grant of authority letter by the Director/Superintendent, Archaeology Department. The Rules are silent as far as about the mode of authority and the discretion has been given to the State Government or the authorities concerned, to adopt any mode and the authority can by way of counter signature grant licence as granted by the Central Government or by issuing a separate letter or any other mode which may be considered proper by the authorities under Rule 8(d) of the Rules and this qualification will solve the problems of the parties and there should not be any confusion in the mind of the parties. As far as the past order is concerned, I will not like to enter into a controversy. In future Rule 8(d) may be interpreted as observed above. 6. The review petition is disposed of accordingly. 7. No order as to costs.Review petition disposed of. *******