ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Heard Shri K. P. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Mishra, Shri J. P. Singh, Shri K. M. Mishra and other learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Dr. Ashok Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India has appeared on behalf of Union of India and Shri Manish Goyal has appeared on behalf of the Tourist Guides Federation of India, newly impleaded respondents. 2. All these writ petitions raising similar questions of fact and law have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 436 of 2009, Gagan Srivastava and others v. Union of India and others, is treated to be the leading petition. 3. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that these writ petitions be finally decided without calling for any further affidavits. For deciding this bunch of writ petitions, it is sufficient to refer to the pleadings made in the Writ Petition No. 436 of 2009 as well as in Writ Petition No. 53072 of 2008. 4. Briefs facts of the case as they emerge from pleadings of the parties are: The petitioners claim to be working as professional guides for the last several years. Petitioners case is that they are earning their livelihood by working as professional guides of national and international tourists. Some of the petitioners claim to be working as hereditary guides and some claim to be working on the basis of the licence issued by the Sajjada Nashin of the Durgah at Fatehpur Sikri. It is submitted that Sajjada Nashin has granted permission to several petitioners and by strength of such permission they are working as tourist guides, but interference is being caused by the Tourism Department of the Government of India as well as the Archaeological Survey of India in working of the petitioners. Hence the writ petitions have been filed. Petitioners have challenged the vires of Rule 8 (d) of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the "rules 1959" ). 5. In Writ Petition No. 436 of 2009, Gagan Srivastava and others v. Union of India and others, following prayer has been made by the petitioners: " (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorariquashing the last para of the Rule 8 (d) of the rules relating to licensing of the guides. 5. In Writ Petition No. 436 of 2009, Gagan Srivastava and others v. Union of India and others, following prayer has been made by the petitioners: " (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorariquashing the last para of the Rule 8 (d) of the rules relating to licensing of the guides. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the working of petitioners as professional guide in Agra during pendency of the instant writ petition before this Honble Court so as to secure ends of justice or else the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss. " 6. In other writ petitions, more or less similar prayers have been made. 7. Shri K. P. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in support of the writ petitions submitted that petitioners who are working as hereditary guides are entitled to work as professional guides. He submits that no exception can be taken to the provisions of Rule 8 (d) which requires permission or an authority for a person to work as a guide. Shri Agarwal, fairly submitted that reasonable restrictions can be imposed on a right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Shri Agarwal, submitted that vires of Rule 8 (d) cannot be successfully challenged. He further submits that while granting licence, persons who had been working either as hereditary guides or as a guide under the licence granted by Sajjada Nashin should automatically be granted licence to work as a guide. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a letter dated 5. 10. 1987 filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, addressed to Shri Rahim Khan, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha informing that representation has been forwarded to Shri Ramesh Chandra, Additional Director General (Tourism) Ministry of Tourism, and further the department proposes to conduct guide training courses at Agra in which hereditary guides shall also be helped. 8. Shri J. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by virtue of experience gained by the petitioners working as professional guides, they are entitled to be permitted to work as guides. He submits that due to increase of tourists from abroad and inside the country more guides are required. 8. Shri J. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by virtue of experience gained by the petitioners working as professional guides, they are entitled to be permitted to work as guides. He submits that due to increase of tourists from abroad and inside the country more guides are required. He submits that petitioners have made several efforts to get regular permission and licences, but no such licences have yet been granted. It is submitted that the tourism department as well as the Archaeological Survey of India had made occasional advertisements for imparting training as guides, but none of the proceedings have been completed due to inefficiency and illegal activities of the respondents. Reliance has been placed on various interim orders passed by this Court, specifically interim order dated 7. 3. 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 13775 of 2008, Yusuf Ali v. Union of India and others. 9. Shri K. M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the writ petition submitted that large number of persons including the petitioners. are engaged in the profession of guide at Agra and other historical places. Shri Mishra, further pointed out that by virtue of different interim orders passed by this Court from time to time hundreds of guides are working and earning their livelihood. Shri Mishra has placed reliance on an interim order passed by this Court dated 10. 3. 2006, in Writ Petition No. 14904 of 2006, Majid Khan v. Union of India and others, filed as (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and interim order dated 15. 10. 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 53072 of 2008, Brijesh Kumar and othersv. Union of India and others. 10. Shri Mishra has reiterated the reasons recorded in the order dated 10. 3. 2006 to support his submission that Rule 8 (d) of 1959, Rules are ultra vires. He submitted that the persons who are working as hereditary guides for several years are entitled to earn their livelihood and no restriction can be imposed on their working asking them to obtain a licence. 3. 2006 to support his submission that Rule 8 (d) of 1959, Rules are ultra vires. He submitted that the persons who are working as hereditary guides for several years are entitled to earn their livelihood and no restriction can be imposed on their working asking them to obtain a licence. Shri Mishra referring to 1959, Rules contended that although the Rules, 1959 refers to different kinds of licences including the permission for construction/mining operation, application for licence of excavation in a protected area, application for moving of Antiquities, licence for mining operation/construction in regulated area and application for licence for filming operation in a protected area, but the Rule 1959 does not require any licence for working as a guide which clearly means that no licence for guide is required under Rules, 1959. He submits that due to increase of tourist traffic guides from other places are interfering with the working of the petitioners in collusion with the department of Archaeological Survey of India and a double system of licensing is going on. Firstly, licence from the tourism department and secondly, licence from the Archaeological Survey of India. No guidelines have been framed for grant or refusal of the licences. Shri Mishra contended that hundreds of petitioners are working as Tourist Guides and in the event they are stopped from working as tourist guide, their livelihood will be affected. He submits that petitioners are looking forward for a direction by this Court so that they may carry on their professional business of guide unhindered. 11. Dr. Ashok Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of Union of India and Shri Manish Goyal on behalf of the Tourist Guides Federation of India, newly impleaded respondents refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that vires of Rule 8 (d) has been upheld by this Court in series of judgments. Shri Manish Goyal submits that petitioners have obtained interim orders in these cases by concealment of relevant facts. Referring to interim orders passed in Writ Petition No. 13775 of 2006, Writ Petition No. 34591 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 46359 of 2004 which has already been dismissed on 19. 9. 2006, petitioners have obtained interim order which is concealment of facts since the said writ petitions stood dismissed on the date when the interim order was granted in several writ petitions. 12. 9. 2006, petitioners have obtained interim order which is concealment of facts since the said writ petitions stood dismissed on the date when the interim order was granted in several writ petitions. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents relying on the judgment of this Court in Asiatic Engineering Company v. Achhru Ram and others, AIR 1951 All 746 , submits that all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed due to suppression of relevant facts from the Court. Shri Manish Goyal submits that vires of Rule 8 (d) has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Virendra Kumar Chadda and others v. Union of India and others, 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1307; Vinodkhanna and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1995 All 159 ; Pavan Kumar and others v. Union of India and others, Al R 1995 All 440 and in Shafeeq Khan and others v. Union of India and others, 2006 (8) ADJ 60 . 13. Shri Ashok Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents submits that a Division Bench of this Court has already dismissed Writ Petition No. 34591 of 2006, Shafeeq Khan and others v. Union of India and others and Writ Petition No. 46359 of 2004 by order dated 19. 9. 2006, and upheld the vires of Rule 8 (d) of 1959 Rules, hence all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. He submits that petitioners are not entitled to any interim relief. 14. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 15. Before proceeding to consider the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the submission of Shri Goyal that all the petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have concealed the fact that Writ Petition No. 34591 of 2006, Shafeeq Khan and others v. Union of India and others, and Writ Petition No. 46359 of 2004, interim order of which was relied on by the petitioners stood dismissed on 19. 9. 2006, hence the petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is true that Writ Petition No. 34591 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 46359 of 2004 challenging the vires of Rule 8 (d) were dismissed on 19. 9. 2006, but some of the petitioners have placed reliance on different interim orders passed by different Division Benches from time to time. 2006, hence the petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is true that Writ Petition No. 34591 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 46359 of 2004 challenging the vires of Rule 8 (d) were dismissed on 19. 9. 2006, but some of the petitioners have placed reliance on different interim orders passed by different Division Benches from time to time. Some of the interim orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court which are relied on by the petitioners have been continuing from time to time. In this bunch of writ petitions different interim orders were relied on by the petitioners some of which petitions were dismissed on 19. 9. 2006 and some along with interim orders being still pending, we are not inclined to dismiss all the writ petitions on the ground of concealment of material facts. It is not proved from the materials brought on the record that there was any deliberate concealment by the petitioners, hence we proceed to examine the contention of the parties on merit. 16. On the issue regarding vires of Rule 8 (d) of Rules, 1959, although Shri K. P. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners very fairly submitted that reasonable restriction on exercise of fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (g) can be made by the State, hence Rule 8 (d) cannot be successfully challenged, but some of the counsel have contended that Rule 8 (d) is ultra vires, hence, we proceed to examine the question of vires of Rule 8 (d) of 1959 Rules. 17. The Parliament enacted The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the "act, 1958") 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. Section 18 of the Act, 1958 provides for right of access to any protected monuments. Protected monument has been defined in Section 2 (j) which means Ancient Monuments which is declared to be of National Importance by or under this Act. 18. Sections 18 and 2 (j) are quoted below: "18. Section 18 of the Act, 1958 provides for right of access to any protected monuments. Protected monument has been defined in Section 2 (j) which means Ancient Monuments which is declared to be of National Importance by or under this Act. 18. Sections 18 and 2 (j) are 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,- 2 (j) "protected monument" means any ancient monument which is declared to be of national importance by or under this Act. " 19. Section 38 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of power under Section 38, Central Government had framed rules namely; Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the "rules 1959" ). 20. Rule 8 (d) is quoted below: "8. Prohibition of certain acts within monuments.-No person shall within a protected monument,- (a ). . . . . (b ). . . . . . (c ). . . . . (d) hawk or sell any goods or wares or canvass any custom for such goods or wares or display and 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; or" 21. A perusal of Rule 8 (d) indicates that no person shall within a protected monuments shall show a visitor around for monetary consideration except under the authority of, or under and in accordance with the conditions of licence granted by an Archaeological Officer. Rule 8 (d), thus specifically contains a prohibition that no person shall act as a guide of a visitor for monetary consideration in a protected monument except under the authority or under a licence granted by an Archaeological Officer. 22. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution grants every citizen a right to carry their own profession, trade or calling. The question of vires of Rule 8 (d) had been considered by this Court in several cases. 23. In V. K. Chaddas case (supra) this Court repelled the challenge to the vires of Rule 8 (d ). 24. Following was laid down in paragraph 26 of the said judgment which is quoted below : "26. The question of vires of Rule 8 (d) had been considered by this Court in several cases. 23. In V. K. Chaddas case (supra) this Court repelled the challenge to the vires of Rule 8 (d ). 24. Following was laid down in paragraph 26 of the said judgment which is quoted below : "26. 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 archaeological 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 of 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. " 25. It is true that citizens have fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (g) to carry out any profession, trade or calling, but reasonable restriction can be imposed in exercise of such right as contemplated under Article 19 (6) of the Constitution. The question as to whether restrictions imposed by law on exercise of fundamental right is a reasonable restriction or not depends on facts of each case. The question as to whether restrictions imposed by law on exercise of fundamental right is a reasonable restriction or not depends on facts of each case. Article 19 (6) of the Constitution contemplates making any law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of general public. Tourist Guides are granted licences to enter into the protected monuments subject to conditions as imposed in the licences. In the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application learned counsel appearing for the Tourist Guides Federation has brought on record the notification dated 21. 1. 2003 issued by the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 29 (a) of 1958 Act, by which the Central Government has delegated its power for framing and issuance of guide licences. The notification dated 21. 1. 2003 is quoted below: "the Gazette of India Extraordinary Published by Authority New Delhi, Friday, January 24, 2003/magha 4. 1924 Department of culture Archaeological survey of India Notification New Delhi, The 21st January, 2003 S. O. 73 (E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29 (a) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites & Remains Act, 1958 the Central Government hereby appoints 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 registration of qualified persons selected through due process by a Committee constituted for the purpose to operate in the protected monuments of national importance. [f. No. 29. 9. 2002-M] Kasturi Gupta Menon Director General & Addl. Secy. " 26. In exercise of power as delegated by notification dated 21. 1. 2003, guidelines have been framed which has been issued vide letter dated 24. 2. 2003, which guidelines have been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application. The guidelines lays down qualifications and the procedure of selection of guides and also lays down terms and conditions for regulating conduct and performance of approved guides. The requirement of obtaining a permission or authority from Archaeological Officer as contained in Rule 8 (d) is thus for an object, which object is in the interest of public. The national and international tourists who visits a protected monument requires assistance of such guides who have sufficient knowledge of the historical importance of the protected monument. The requirement of obtaining a permission or authority from Archaeological Officer as contained in Rule 8 (d) is thus for an object, which object is in the interest of public. The national and international tourists who visits a protected monument requires assistance of such guides who have sufficient knowledge of the historical importance of the protected monument. Thus, regulation of selection and conducts of guides is in the interest of public in general and the restrictions imposed under Rule 8 (d) cannot be said to be unreasonable. The right of a citizen to work as a guide has not been restricted, but has only been regulated by operation of Rule 8 (d ). The vires of Rule 8 (d) has been upheld in series of Division Bench judgments of this Court. In Pavan Kumars case (supra) following was laid down in paragraph 7 of the said judgment which is quoted below: "7. 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. 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 0 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 orders laying down the conditions on fulfillment of which the licence can be issued. We do not find any reason to take a contrary view. The Tourism Department of the Government of India is empowered to issue executive orders laying down the conditions on fulfillment 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 Chaddas 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. " 27. Again in the Division Bench judgment of Shafeeq Khan (supra) Rule 8 (d) was held to be intra vires. 28. In B. P. Sharmas case (2003) 7 SCC 309 ) the apex Court has also made an observation that there is no infirmity in Rule 8 (d ). Following was held in paragraph 10 of the said judgment which is quoted below: "10. In this light, we now advert to Rule 8 (d) of the Rules which provides certain prohibitions, saying that no person shall show a visitor around for monetary consideration except under the authority or conditions of licence granted by an archaeological officer. The purpose of Rule 8 (d) is clear that the place may remain protected, be maintained and be kept neat and well and no person may charge a visitor for taking him around the place except one who is authorized as an approved guide. His charges would be as fixed," 29. In view of what has been stated above, Rule 8 (d) cannot be held to be ultra vires and the submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioners that Rule 8 (d) is ultra vires is rejected. 30. His charges would be as fixed," 29. In view of what has been stated above, Rule 8 (d) cannot be held to be ultra vires and the submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioners that Rule 8 (d) is ultra vires is rejected. 30. The submission which has been pressed by Shri K. P. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel that the persons who are working as hereditary guides or the persons who have been granted licence by Sajjada 1 Nashin of the Durgah at Fatehpur Sikri are entitled to carry on their profession of guide without taking licences be now considered. 31. The parliament has enacted the Act, 1958 which is referable to Entry 67 of List 1 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Rules have been framed under the Act 1958 i. e. , 1959 Rules. Rule 8 (d) specifically requires authority or permission from an Archaeological Officer for permitting a person to enter into a protected monument and work as a guide on monetary consideration. The entire field being covered by statutory provisions where permission is required under Rule 8 (d), permission even if granted by Sajjada Nashin came to an end after the enforcement of Act, 1958 and the Rules, 1959. 32. The statutory scheme makes it mandatory that without an authority or permission from the Archaeological Officer, no person can claim as a matter of right to work as a guide in a protected monument. The Division Bench of this Court in Virendra Kumar Chaddas case (supra) has considered and rejected the similar arguments raised in the said case. The Division Bench judgment of Virendra Kumar Chaddas case (supra) came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of 6. P. Sharma v. Union of India and others, 2003 (7) SCC 309 , Relying on the judgment of V. K. Chaddha (supra), Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition of approved guides who were refused renewal of their licences on the strength of Clause 17 which provided "when a guide attains the age of 60 years, the Identity Card issued to him/her will not be renewed further". In V. K. Chaddas case (supra) correctness of Clause 17 had been upheld which judgment was followed by a judgment of this Court in another Writ Petition No. 5149 of 1991 decided on 28. 4. 1995. Against the judgment dated 28. 4. In V. K. Chaddas case (supra) correctness of Clause 17 had been upheld which judgment was followed by a judgment of this Court in another Writ Petition No. 5149 of 1991 decided on 28. 4. 1995. Against the judgment dated 28. 4. 1995, an appeal was filed by the Tourist Guides which was decided by the Honble Supreme Court in B. P. Sharmas case (supra ). The Supreme Court while considering the B. P. Sharmas case (supra) has laid down following in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said judgment which is quoted below: "14. The right which is guaranteed to all citizens under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India is to practise any profession or to carry on any calling, trade or business. Clause (6) of Article 19, however, places restriction that nothing would prevent the State from making any law imposing reasonable restrictions in exercise of the right in the interest of the general public. Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) further provide that professional and technical qualifications, as may be thought necessary for practising the profession, can always be prescribed and exclusion of carrying on of any calling, trade or business etc. is also envisaged which is also carried on by a State or by a corporation owned and controlled by the State. Subject to the above noted restrictions the valuable right as provided under Article 19 (1) (g) is available to all the citizens who are free to choose any trade, business, calling or profession etc. It obviously, also includes the manner and terms in which they will carry on their profession, but again subject to reasonable restrictions which may be thought necessary by the State in the interest of the general public. On the other hand, once a citizen voluntarily chooses to join but he would be bound by the terms and conditions of the service as may be provided under the law or by contract of service. 2 15. The freedom under Article 19 (1) (g) can also be completely curtailed in certain circumstances e. g. where the profession chosen is so inherently pernicious that nobody can be considered to have a fundamental right to carry on such business, trade, calling or profession like gambling, betting or dealing in intoxicants or an activity injurious to be public health and morals. It may be useful to refer to a few decisions of this Court on the point at this stage viz. in Saghir Ahmad v. State of U. P. , AIR 1954 SC 728 and J. K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers, (1996) 6 SCC 665 . The main purpose of restricting the exercise of the right is to strike a balance between individual freedom and social control. The freedom, however, as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) is valuable and cannot be violated on grounds which are not established to be in public interest or just on the basis that it is permissible to do so. For placing complete prohibition on any professional activity, there must exist some strong reason for the same with a view to attain some legitimate object and in case of non-imposition of such prohibition, it may result in jeopardizing or seriously affecting the interest of the people in general. If it is not so, it would not be reasonable restriction if placed on exercise of the right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g ). " 33. The correctness of V. K. Chaddhas case was challenged in so far as it upheld Clause 17. The Apex Court examined in the said case the validity of Clause 17 alone and held that the said clause is violative of Article 19 (1) (g ). The Apex Court in B. P. Sharmas case (supra) laid down that reasonable restrictions can be provided for in exercise of fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (g) which restriction varies from case to case. In B. P. Sharmas case (supra) it confined its discussion to clause 17 which provided that the licences of guides shall not be renewed if the guide attains the age of 60 years. Such clause was held to be unreasonable and violative of fundamental right. In the present case, no question pertaining to age has come up for consideration. 34. In V. K. Chaddas case (supra), bunch of writ petitions were decided. Some of the petitioners claim themselves to be hereditary guides and some of them claim their right on the basis of licence granted by Sajjada Nashin of the Durgah at Fatehpur Sikri. It is useful to quote paragraph 6 of the judgment in V. K. Chaddas case which is to the following effect: "6. Some of the petitioners claim themselves to be hereditary guides and some of them claim their right on the basis of licence granted by Sajjada Nashin of the Durgah at Fatehpur Sikri. It is useful to quote paragraph 6 of the judgment in V. K. Chaddas case which is to the following effect: "6. Writ Petition No. 9032 of 1988 has been filed by Tourist Guide Welfare Association, Fatehpur Sikri district Agra and Writ Petition No. 18584 of 1989 has been filed by Mohd. Sharif Khan and others. These petitions have been filed by the so-called hereditary guides. The case of the hereditary guides is that they have been carrying on the business of working as professional guides for the national and international tourists at Agra and have no source of livelihood except the aforesaid profession which they are carrying on the same way at their ancestors before them. It has been averred that hereditary guides as well as their ancestors have been working on the strength of the permanent 3 permission/licence granted to them by Sajjada Nashin of Dargah. Their cases are that since they have been granted permission/licence by Sajjada Nashin of Dargah of Fatehpur Sikri, they are entitled to carry on their profession as guides and the Department of Tourism as well as Department of Archaeology cannot insist on them for taking licence before they carry on profession as tourist guides. The hereditary guides have also challenged the validity of certain provisions of the Act and Rules in support of these submissions. " 35. The Division Bench after considering the submissions of both the parties rejected the claim of the petitioners who were claiming to be hereditary guides as well as those who were claiming to work as guides on the basis of licence granted by Sajjada Nashin. Both the arguments were rejected. Paragraphs 36 and 42 of the said judgment are relevant in this context and are quoted below: "36. In order to consider the third submission made on behalf of he hereditary guides it is necessary to point out that in accordance with the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, there are two sets of guides. Once are those guides of the Archaeological Survey of India, who work at a particular monuments for which the licence has been issued. Once are those guides of the Archaeological Survey of India, who work at a particular monuments for which the licence has been issued. The other types are those which are approved by the Department of Tourism and selected by the selection committee in accordance with the criteria and guidelines laid down. It has to be borne in mind that there may be guides approved by the Tourist Department who do not visit protected monuments. In those cases, it is not necessary to obtain a licence from the archaeological officer under Rule 8 (d ). But in the case of those very guides approved by the Tourist Department in case they enter with a tourist in a protected monuments then it is incumbent upon the said guide to obtain a licence from the archaeological officer. A licence under Rule 8 (d) is only necessary in the case of guides for protected monuments. In view of Rule 8 (d), it is clear that it is incumbent upon him to obtain a licence under Rule 8 (d) of the Act and in case he does not obtain licence, he cannot carry on his profession as a guide in the said protected monuments. The petitioners in the present petitions are guide who want to carry on their profession in the protected monuments. Some of them call themselves as hereditary guides. Their argument is that holding of a test by the Tourist Department is an unreasonable restriction on their right to carry on their profession and consequently, is in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India provides that all citizens shall have a right to practise any profession, or carry on any occupation, trade or business. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India provides that all citizens shall have a right to practise any profession, or carry on any occupation, trade or business. Sub-clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, however, further provides that: "nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to- 4 (i) the professional or technical qualification necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or (ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise. " 42. The resultant effect of the above discussion is that in case a person wants to be a tourist guide and wants to take a visitor round for monetary consideration in protected monuments, he can do so only if he obtains a licence by an archaeological officer otherwise he cannot act as tourist guide in a protected monument. The petitioners admittedly have not taken any licence from the archaeological officer. The case of some of the petitioners who allege that they are hereditary guides and they are working as guides on the strength of permanent permission/licence granted to them by Sajjada Nashin of Dargah. In writ petition No. 9032 of 1988, Tourist Guide Welfare Associations. Union of India, permission vide Annexure-1 A has been given to one Shamshuddin Khan. This permission has been by Sajjada Nashin of Dargah, Fatehpur Sikri, Agra. Tourist guides cannot be permitted to function on any permanent permission/licence granted by Sajjada Nashin. He has no jurisdiction to grant such a licence. The only authority which could issue the licence is the archaeological officer under Rule 8 (d) of the Rules and as such the petitioners have no right to carry on the profession of the guide unless they obtain a licence from the archaeological officer. He has no jurisdiction to grant such a licence. The only authority which could issue the licence is the archaeological officer under Rule 8 (d) of the Rules and as such the petitioners have no right to carry on the profession of the guide unless they obtain a licence from the archaeological officer. We, consequently find no merit in any of the group of petitions filed in this Court. " 36. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that hereditary guides or the persons who had earlier obtained licence from Sajjada Nashin are entitled to work as guides without obtaining appropriate licence in accordance with the provisions of Rules, 1959. Thus, it is held that for every person who enters into a protected monument to carry out his professional work of guide it is necessary to obtain authority or permission as contemplated under Rule 8 (d) of 1959 Rules. The guide licences are being granted in accordance with the guidelines framed from time to time under the Act, 1958 and the 1959 Rules. Thus the submissions that large number of persons who are working as guides on the strength of the interim orders granted by this Court in protected monuments, if are stopped from carrying on their profession of guide they will suffer great hardship and misery has to be rejected. 37. In view of what has been held above, every person who enters the protected monument to work as a guide for monetary consideration has to obtain necessary permission or authority. However, from the submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioners and materials brought on record, it is to be noted 5 that the respondents are not taking appropriate prompt exercise for making the selection of guides who are to be given licences to work as Regional Guide/state Level Guide. 38. However, from the submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioners and materials brought on record, it is to be noted 5 that the respondents are not taking appropriate prompt exercise for making the selection of guides who are to be given licences to work as Regional Guide/state Level Guide. 38. In Writ Petition No. 11104 of 2007, Asad Mughni and others v. Union of India and others, which has been decided by a separate judgment of the date we have allowed the writ petition with the following directions: (iii) Respondent No. 3 (Director General, Directorate of Tourism, Lucknow) shall issue a corrigendum in continuation of the advertisement dated 21st November, 2006 extending the date for inviting applications for the selection of State Level Guide within two weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order upon him. (iv) Respondent No. 3 shall complete the process of selection of State Level Guide strictly in accordance with the 2003 Guidelines (Guidelines dated 24th February, 2003) expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of issue of corrigendum. The other respondents may take all necessary steps enabling the selection of State Level Guide to be completed within the aforesaid period. 39. We having provided liberty to all those persons who intend to apply for State Level Guide to make an application in pursuance of our direction as noticed above, it is open for all the petitioners to submit an application and undergo through process of selection of State Level Guide to enable them to obtain necessary licence for working as guide in protected monuments. We also observe that tourism department of the Government of India may also take appropriate steps regularly for screening the candidates who are to be given licences for working as Regional Guide so that persons who are engaged in self employment of guide may get an opportunity to undergo through process of obtaining licence of tourist guide. 40. In view of the foregoing discussion, the prayer of the petitioners to declare Rule 8 (d) as ultra vires is refused. It is held that the petitioners are not entitled to work as Tourist Guides in the protected monuments without obtaining appropriate licence. 41. In the result, subject to the observations as made above, all the writ petitions are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. 6 .