JUDGMENT 1. - The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the excursion agents and travel agents should take the services of the guides who have been authorised by the Archaeological Officer in terms of Rule 8(d) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 or they should be guides approved by the department of Tourism of Archaeology of the State Govt. in respect of the State Monuments and the unauthorised persons who have not been granted the licence/identity cards should not be allowed to perform the function as a guide. 2. The submission of Mr. Sharma is that there should be a prohibitory order directing the authorities that in case the excursion agents or the travel agents employ any person as a guide for the services as a guide then action should be taken against such excursion agents/travel agents. The arguments on behalf of the respondents is that so far as the services as a guide are provided by the authorised guides in respect of the State monuments, the work is undertaken only by those persons who have been authorised by the Archaeological department or the tourist department. It is denied by them that any unauthorised persons have ever been authorised as a guide. 3. The arguments of Mr. Dhingra, learned counsel for the intervenor is that he has wrongly been referred in the writ petition as a tout when he is an authorised guide by the Govt. of India. 4. The provisions of rule 8(d) provide that person who can act as a guide must be authorised by the Archaeological Officer of the Govt. of India. This position will apply so far as monuments declared by the Central Govt. are concerned. These guides have further been authorised by endorsing their identify cards by the Archaeological department/tourist department in respect of the State monuments and therefore will be entitled to provide the services in respect of the State Monuments as well. The provisions of rule 8(d) are very clear and therefore the persons who are authorised can alone be allowed to provide the services as a guide. If any unauthorised person is found to be acting as a guide then it would be the duty of the authority to take action against that person or the agent who has authorised him to act as a guide. If any unauthorised person is found to be acting as a guide then it would be the duty of the authority to take action against that person or the agent who has authorised him to act as a guide. The reference of Shri Hamendra Singh Chauhan as a tout prima facie appears to be in-correct. As a matter of fact the petitioner should have made these persons as respondent against whom something is alleged but since it was found that Shri Hamendra Singh Chauhan is duly authorised guide, the writ petition is allowed with the direction that the persons who are authorised by the department of tourism/Archaeological department of the State will be entitled to provide the services for the State monuments and the persons who have authorised by the Archaeological Officer of the Central Govt. will be authorised to provide the services as a guide for Central Monuments and any endorsement vis-a-vis by the authority of the State/Central will further authorise them to work as such.With these observations the writ petition is allowed.Writ Petition Allowed. *******