JUDGMENT By the Court.—This petition has been filed by certain Tourist Guides for quashing certain portion of Rule 8(d) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) that have been framed under Section 38 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). A direction has also been sought that the respondents may not interfere with the working of the petitioners as Tourist Guides. 2. The petitioners claim that they have been working as Tourist Guides for the last 8-20 years and that even their ancestors have been working as such on the basis of a licence granted by Sajjada Nashin of the Dargah at Fatehpur Sikri. However, after the enactment of the Act and the framing of the Rules, the Tourism Department of India had started interfering with the working of the petitioners and is insisting that they obtain the licence from the Department of Archaeology or the Department of the Tourism. The petitioners claim that they are conversant with the English, Hindi and Urdu and have derived sufficient knowledge from their ancestors about the Monuments. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Dr. A.K. Nigam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that not only Rule 8(d) of the Rules is ultra vires the provisions of the Act but is also invalid on account of the fact that no guidelines have been provided in the said Rules about the manner in which the licence shall be issued or refused by the Archaeological Officer. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the restriction imposed upon the Guides to possess a licence is unreasonable and that the Tourist Department of the Government has no jurisdiction to interfere in the grant of licence by the Archaeological Officer. 5. Dr. Nigam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that the validity of Rule 8(d) of the Rules has been upheld by this Court in a number of decisions and that the restriction imposed is a reasonable restriction and cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. 6. 5. Dr. Nigam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that the validity of Rule 8(d) of the Rules has been upheld by this Court in a number of decisions and that the restriction imposed is a reasonable restriction and cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. 6. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this petition, it may be necessary to refer to the various provisions of the Act and the Rules which govern the issue of licences to Tourist Guides. The Act provides for preservation of Ancient and Historical Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains of National importance. “Ancient Monument” has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act to mean any structure, erection or monument etc. which is of historical, archaeological or artistic interest and which has been in existence for not less than one hundred years. “Protected Monument” has been defined under Section 2(j) of the Act to mean an ancient monument which has been declared to be of national importance by or under the Act. Section 3 of the Act is a deeming clause and it provides that all ancient and historical monuments and all archaeological sites and remain which have been declared by the Ancient Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951, or by Section 126 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 to be of national importance shall be deemed to be ancient and historical monuments or archaelogical sites and remains declared to be of national importance for the purposes of this Act. It is not disputed by the parties that the monuments at Agra in relation to which the tourist guides have raised the present dispute are protected monuments which are ancient monuments declared to be of national importance. 7. Section 18 of the Act which will be relevant for determining the controversy raised in these petitions is quoted below : “18. Right of access to protected monuments.—Subject to any rules made under this Act, the public shall have a right of access to any protected monument.” 8. Section 38 of the Act gives power to the Central Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Right of access to protected monuments.—Subject to any rules made under this Act, the public shall have a right of access to any protected monument.” 8. Section 38 of the Act gives power to the Central Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 38(2)(c), in particular, gives power to the Central Government to frame Rules to provide for right of access to the public to a protected monument and the fee, if any, to be charged therefor. 9. Under Section 38 of the Act, the Central Government made the aforesaid Rules. Rule 8 provides for prohibition of certain acts within monuments. The relevant portion of Rule 8 is quoted below : "8. No person shall, within a protected monument : (a)......... (b)......... (c).......... (d) hawk or sell any goods or wares or canvas any custom for such goods or wares or display any advertisement in any form or show a visitor round for monetary consideration except under the authority of, or under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by, an archaeological officer. (e)......... (f)........ (g)...........” 10. On a reading of Section 18 of the Act alongwith Rule 8 (d) of the Rules, it becomes clear that there is a restriction placed upon a person who enters the protected monument alongwith a visitor for monetary consideration to show the said visitor the protected monuments. It is persons who show the visitor for monetary consideration who are known as guides. Restrictions have been placed under and the Rules that they cannot act as guides except under the authority of, or under and in accordance with the conditions of licence granted by an archaeological officer. 11. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that Rule 8(d) is ultra vires the provisions of the Act. This question has time and again been examined by various Division Benches of this Court. In Virendra Kumar Chadda etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc. 11. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that Rule 8(d) is ultra vires the provisions of the Act. This question has time and again been examined by various Division Benches of this Court. In Virendra Kumar Chadda etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc. etc., (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1307, a Division Bench of this Court after noticing that the primary aim of any national or international tourist is to see the ancient monuments in the country which are of national importance and that as the ancient monuments of national importance are under the control of the Archaeological Survey of India, both the departments of Tourism and Archaeological Survey have to work together, repelled the aforesaid submission and observed : “Section 38 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. It is in order to carry out the purposes of the Act that the Central Government has made the Rules, which includes Rule 8(d). Rule 8(d) only prohibits a person from hawking or selling any goods or wares or canvass any custom for such goods or wares or display any advertisement in any form or show a visitor round for monetary consideration except under the authority of, or under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by, an archaelogical officer. Rule 8(d), consequently, does not prohibit completely access of any person to any protected monuments or to carry on any business in such protected monuments or protected area, but only places restrictions. So far as the tourist guides are concerned, the restriction has been placed that they cannot show the visitor round for monetary consideration except under the authority of, or under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by an archaeological officer. In our opinion, the restriction placed on the right of a person to act as a tourist guide cannot be said to be beyond the object of the Act. The main object of the Act is to protect and preserve the ancient monuments and it is in order to achieve that very object that Rule 8(d) has been framed by the Central Government under Section 38 of the Act. It cannot be said, therefore, that Rule 8(d) is ultra vires the Act." 12. The main object of the Act is to protect and preserve the ancient monuments and it is in order to achieve that very object that Rule 8(d) has been framed by the Central Government under Section 38 of the Act. It cannot be said, therefore, that Rule 8(d) is ultra vires the Act." 12. In M/s. Paramount Studio and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1981 All 186 , a similar question arose in respect of persons who claimed to be doing photographers business within the protected monuments and the protected area. While considering this question, it has been observed by this Court as under : “We find that the provisions of clause (d) of Rule 8 are in conformity with the object of the Act and they have been made with the purpose of regulating the access of the visitors to the monuments and the use of the precincts of the monuments by those visitors. No person can claim as of right that he shall carry on business at a place which is not owned by him or acquired by him or for which he does not have the requisite permission. The rule in question not only regulates the actual entry in the precincts of the monuments but also controls the user or the monument. The Act and the rules in question raise the citizens’ sense or responsibility in protecting and maintaining these monuments of national importance in their original form”. We agree with the observations made in the case of M/s. Paramount Studio and others v. Union of India and others (supra). Accordingly, we do not agree with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Rule 8(d) is ultra vires the Act.” 13. In Raj Kumar Gupta and others v. Union of India, New Delhi and others, (1999) 3 UPLBEC 1917 , another Division Bench of this Court upheld the vires of Rule 8(d) of the Rules in view of the decision given in the case of Virendra Kumar Chadda (supra). 14. We entirely agree with the observations made by this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Chadda (supra) and Raj Kumar Gupta (supra) and accordingly, do not agree with the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Rule 8(d) of the Rules is ultra vires the provisions of the Act. 15. 14. We entirely agree with the observations made by this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Chadda (supra) and Raj Kumar Gupta (supra) and accordingly, do not agree with the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Rule 8(d) of the Rules is ultra vires the provisions of the Act. 15. The next contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is about the invalidity of Rule 8(d) of the Rules on account of the fact that no guidelines have been provided for in the said Rule for issuance of the licence. This contention was also considered and repelled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Chadda (supra). “Rule 8 (d) provides that in case a person wants to show a visitor round for monetary consideration, this can be done only in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by an archaeological officer. The person who shows the visitor round for monetary consideration is popularly known as ‘a guide’ to a visitor. A guide, consequently, can accompany a visitor for monetary consideration if he has obtained a licence. The purpose for enacting the Act and framing the rules is to provide for preservation of ancient historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance and for the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and other like objects. It is to achieve this purpose that the rules provide for obtaining a licence by the guides. It is in accordance with the object of the Act. The word ‘archaeological officer’ has been defined in Section 2(c) of the Act which means an officer of the Department of Archaeology of the Government of India not lower in rank that the Assistant Superintendent of Archaeology. The power, consequently, to grant a licence to a tourist guide is given to a higher officer who is not lower in rank to that of an Assistant Superintendent Archaeology. This by itself is a sufficient safeguard to ensure that power to grant licence is not exercised arbitrarily. The very word ‘tourist’ itself implies that a person can be tourist guide provided he is qualified to conduct a traveller or a tourist to point out objects of interest in the case of protected monuments, namely, ancient monuments of national importance. This by itself is a sufficient safeguard to ensure that power to grant licence is not exercised arbitrarily. The very word ‘tourist’ itself implies that a person can be tourist guide provided he is qualified to conduct a traveller or a tourist to point out objects of interest in the case of protected monuments, namely, ancient monuments of national importance. It is implied in the profession of the tourist that the tourist must know each and everything about the ancient monuments, the history of the country and archaeological aspect of the monuments. He must know the language in order to enable him to guide the tourist and he must have proper moral values so that he can properly represent the country and also to guide not only national but also international tourists. Under Rule 8(d) when an archaeological officer is obliged to grant a licenced a person who wants to carry on the business of tourist guide, it is incumbent upon the said archaeological officer to see that the said person can really act as a tourist guide to national as well as international tourists. These by itself are sufficient guidelines for the purpose of determining as to whether a person is entitled to get a licence of tourist guide or not. In the circumstances we do not agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner when it is urged that Rule 8(d) is ultra vires as no guidelines have been provided in the said rule for the manner of issue of licence.” 16. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pavan Kumar and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1995 All. 440 , expressed complete agreement with the views expressed in the case of Virendra Kumar Chadda (supra) and further observed as follows : “ We find ourselves in agreement with the view expressed in the aforestated cases. We are further of the view that no person has any fundamental right to access to any protected monument or to carry on the profession of guides in an unfettered manner. We are further of the view that no person has any fundamental right to access to any protected monument or to carry on the profession of guides in an unfettered manner. Section 18 of the Act confers a right upon public to have an access to any protected monument “subject to any rules made under the Act” and Rule 8(d) of the Rules prohibits certain acts within the protected monuments in that it is clearly provided therein that no person shall “hawk or sell” any goods or wares or canvass any customer for such goods or wares or display any advertisement in any form or show a visitor round for monetary consideration, except under the authority of, or under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by an Archaeological Officer. It is thus evident that no person has a right to act as a guide inside any national monument except under licence granted under and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8(d), the validity of which has been countenanced by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Chadda (supra). We do not find any reason to take a contrary view. The Tourism Department of the Government of India is empowered to issue executive order laying down the conditions on fulfilment of which the licence can be issued. The fact that process of selection for issuance of licence under Rule 8(d) is done by the Tourism Department, would not vitiate the licence which is granted by an Archaeological Officer as pointed out in Virendra Chadda’s case (supra) both the Departments of Tourism and Archaeological Survey of India, work in unison and the process of selection for issuance of licence in favour of guides done by the Tourism Department would inure to grant of licence under Rule 8(d) only after it is approved by the officer empowered to grant licence under Rule 8(d) that is implicit for the requirement of Identity Cards issued by the Tourism Department being countersigned by the Archaeological Officer.” 17. This apart, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that Government of India, Department of Culture, Archaeological Survey of India issued a notification dated 21.1.2003 in exercise of the powers under Section 29(a) of the Act and appointed the Additional Director General (Department of Tourism) Ministry of Tourism as the “ statutory authority” under the Act for framing and issuing guidelines for issuance of guide licences, approval and restriction of qualified persons selected through due process by a Committee constituted for the purposes to operate in the protected monuments of national importance. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, the guidelines have been framed. A three tier system of guides has been introduced. They are the Regional Guides, State Level Guides and Local Guides. The educational qualification and age limit for all the aforesaid three levels of guides have been separately provided including the procedure for selection for guide training course. Rule 9 provides for issuance of guide licence and is as follows : “Issuance of guide license.—On successful completion of their training course the regional level guides would be issued guide licence by the concerned regional India tourism office of Government of India. State Level Guides, on successful completion of their training course would be issued guide licences by the Director of Tourism of the respective State which would be duly endorsed by the Department of Tourism, Government of India and Archaeological Survey of India. Identity cards of State-Level Guides would be endorsed by the respective State Archaeological Departments etc. State Government would also be requested to extend similar endorsement on the Identity Cards of the Regional-level guides for the coverage of the State monuments etc. under their control. The local-level guides will have no authority to conduct visitors to the monuments controlled by ASI. As regards State-controlled monuments, it is for the respective State Departments of Tourism or the Archaeological Departments to take a decision on permitting them to conduct tourists to such monuments.” 18. Thus also the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted as guidelines have been framed. The terms and conditions regulating the conduct and performance of approved guides and the Code of Ethics for tourist guides has also been enclosed along with the copy of the Rules. 19. Thus also the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted as guidelines have been framed. The terms and conditions regulating the conduct and performance of approved guides and the Code of Ethics for tourist guides has also been enclosed along with the copy of the Rules. 19. The next contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that Tourist Department of the Government has no jurisdiction to interfere in the grant of licence by the Archaeological Officer who alone is the competent authority. This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners was also considered and repelled by this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Chadda (supra) by observing : “.....It is primary object of the Tourist Department to see that the tourism is promoted of India. It is also the duty of the Tourism Department to see that tourists whether they are national or international are properly looked after and they are also able to visit the various places of interest in the country. Practically every tourist is interested in visiting the protected monuments, namely, ancient monuments of national importance and consequently, if a tourist guide is to accompany a tourist inside the protected monuments, the Tourist Department has to see that the tourist’s welfare is maintained, it has to ensure that the tourist is given proper information and the information which is given to the tourist is actually in accordance with the history and the culture of the country. In fact the work of a tourist guide is of such great importance that any lapse on the part of the guide would affect the prestige of the country. It is consequently, essential that the Department of Tourism works in consonance with the Department of Archaeology and it cannot possibly be said that joint decision taken by the Tourism Department with the Department of Archaeology would in any manner be invalid in law. Licence, in any case, which is issued to a person is always by an archaeological officer as required under Rule 8(d) of the Rules. It may be that with the agreement of the Department of Archaeology, the Tourist Department may be holding the test under their authority but that does not mean that the power of the archaeological officer has been delegated to the Tourist Department. It may be that with the agreement of the Department of Archaeology, the Tourist Department may be holding the test under their authority but that does not mean that the power of the archaeological officer has been delegated to the Tourist Department. In our opinion, consequently, it cannot be said that merely because the Tourist Department is associated with the issue of the licence to tourist guide, the whole procedure is without jurisdiction.” 20. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the holding of the test is unreasonable restriction on their rights to carry on their profession and consequently violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution cannot also be accepted in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Chadda (supra) wherein it was observed : “In view of Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India, it is clear that the State can make reasonable restrictions on the exercise of a right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and can also make law relating to technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession. In the instant case, as already held above, the tourist guides require knowledge in regard to the various subjects of history, architecture, language etc. Holding of a test by the Tourist Department for the purpose of granting a licence under Rule 8 (d) of the Rules to a tourist guide cannot be said to be an unreasonable restriction on the right of a guide to carry on his profession of a tourist guide. In case a person does not have knowledge of the various subjects required to make him a tourist guide, he cannot be permitted to carry on the said profession.” 21. Thus, as none of the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners has any force, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. 22. After the judgment was delivered, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that some observation may be made by the Court that in case the petitioners or other similarly situated persons move applications for grant of licence, their cases may be considered expeditiously. 23. 22. After the judgment was delivered, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that some observation may be made by the Court that in case the petitioners or other similarly situated persons move applications for grant of licence, their cases may be considered expeditiously. 23. Shri K.C. Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents, who is present in the Court, has assured the Court that in case the petitioners file such applications and they satisfy the conditions stipulated, they shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. Petition Dismissed. ———