S.D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) This is a group of petitions filed by the tourist guides from Agra. The parties 6rc agree that tho writ petition No. 10714 of 1991 Which has been bled by Virendra Kumar Chaddha be treated as the leading case. Consequently, in this petition, the Standing Counsel fur the Union of India has tiled counter-affidavits on behalf of the Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi as well as on behalf of the Tourist Department, Government of India, New Delhi.
(2.) Tourist guides can be dived d into two categories, one category are those tourist guides, who work as professional guides for the national and international tourists, and, the other category is known as hereditary guides, who work as guides in the historical monuments of Agra mainly at five monuments, namely, Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri, Agra Fort, Sikandara and Etmauddaula. Some of the petitioners in this group of petitions alleged that they are working as professional guides while rest that claim they are working as hereditary guides for the national and international tourists. All the petitioners are, however, working as guides at Agra and their grievance is that they are being restrained by the Tourist Department as well as the Department of At cbaeologioal Survey of India (hereinafter referred to as Archaeological Department) to work as guides at the monuments of Agra on the ground that they cannot work unless they obtain a licence from the Archaeological Department and it is this action of the respondents Which is the subject of challenge in these petitions.
(3.) Writ Petition No. 10714 of 1991 has been filed with the allegation that the petitioner is a tourist guide who has been earning his livelihood by working as professional guide for the national and international tourists. It has been averred that the Department of Archaeological as well as the Department of Tourist are adopting different and arbitrary criteria viz., age limits educational qualifications etc. for issue of the licence to guides.;