AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been field by the petitioner Ajay Dudi challenging validity of Rule 10(xvi) and (xvii) of the Rajasthan Tourism Trade (Facilitation and Regulation) Rules, 2010 (for short 'the Rules of 2010') and Condition No. 7 and 11 of the Terms and Conditions framed under the Guidelines for the Selection and Grant of Guide License to Regional Level Tourist Guides (RLG), 2011 (for short 'the Guidelines of 2011') with the prayer that the same be declared ultra vires of the Constitution of India being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Vijay Poonia, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India provides the fundamental right to every citizen of India to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business including the business of tourism. The petitioner is duly authorized being a registered guide with the Ministry of Tourism, Union of India to carry out such profession. Rule 10(xvi) and (xvii) of the Rules of 2010 and Condition No. 7 and 11 of the Guidelines of 2011 impose unreasonable restriction upon the said fundamental right of the petitioner, therefore, the same be declared ultra vires of the Constitution of India.
Mr. B. S. Chhaba, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents has disputed aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the Rules of 2010 and the Guidelines of 2011 were framed for regulating the conduct of persons confronting the tourist visiting the State and to provide certain measures to make the travel of the tourists hassle free and also for boosting the tourism traffic at heritage sites. The aforesaid Rules and Guidelines were intended to aim at accelerating tourism potential of the country as well as the State and to make the visit of the tourists comfortable, easy and self assuring by adopting certain measures in the shape of establishment of tourist assistant force.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Solicitor General and perused the material on record.
Rule 10(xvi) and (xvii) of the Rules of 2010 are reproduced as under:
"10. General conditions for all Guides.-The general conditions for all Guides are as under:
(i) xxxxx
(ii) xxxxxx
(xvi) The Guide shall not canvass business of any kind on behalf of the business house, travel agents, excursion agents, hoteliers, paying guest house, shopkeepers, transport operators etc. nor he would accept commission from them or indulge in any other unethical practices.
(xvii) The Guide shall not enter into any other business arrangements with any of the establishments either by way of partnership or on commission basis."
Condition No. 7 and 11 of the Guidelines of 2011 are reproduced as under:
"7. The guide would not canvass business of any kind on behalf of the business houses, travel agents, hoteliers, paying guest houses, shop keepers, transport operators, etc., nor he /she would accept monetary commission from them or indulge in any unethical practices.
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
The guide would take tourists only for sightseeing to the monuments and public buildings, which are a part of the sightseeing tour included in the itinerary of the tourists. Under no circumstances should any guide accompany the tourists to shops. In case, any guide is found to have contravened this provision his/her license is liable to be cancelled/revoked."
Perusal of the aforesaid Rules and Guidelines speak for themselves. These Rules and Guidelines are intended to protect the tourists visiting the country as well as the State from exploitation at the hands of persons like touts which in common parlance are known as 'lapkas', and also from 'baggers', 'hawkers', 'taxi drivers' etc. so that they are not harassed and annoyed for undue pecuniary gains. The aforesaid Rules and Guidelines have been incorporated to achieve laudable object of ensuring that the tourists who visit our country do not carry any bad impression about the system prevalent here. None of the aforesaid Rules and Guidelines in our view violate either Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
We may in this connection refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. P. Krishnamurthy & Ors. (2006) SCC 517 wherein the Supreme Court succinctly enunciated the law on which subordinate legislation can be challenged and elucidated the grounds thereof in the following terms:-
"(a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation.
(b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
(c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India.
(d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act.
(e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment.
(f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where the court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority to make such rules)."
None of the aforesaid grounds is made out in the present case so as to warranting interference of this Court.
In view of above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.