- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 17-12-2002 copy of which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition passed by the respondent No. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) IT is alleged in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that respondent No. 2, the Director General, Archeological Survey of India issued an advertisement on 4-8-2000 in the daily newspaper inviting applications for the grant of photographic licenses for taking photograph of visitors of Taj Mahal, Agra Fort, Fatehpur Sikri etc. A true copy of the advertisement is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner applied against that advertisement for grant of photographic licence on 28-8-2000. True copy of the application form is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner also deposited the security amount as required. It may be mentioned that the licence is required under Rule 8- d of the Rules made under the Ancient Monument and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Rule 8-d states: "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 any advertisement in any form or show a visitor round or take his photograph for monetary consideration except under the authority of or under in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by an Archeological Officer. " It is alleged in paragraph 12 of the petition that the Screening Committee/selection Committee made verification and submitted its report for grant of licence to the petitioner who was found successful, and the Director General, Archeological Survey of India have approved the grant of photographic licence to the petitioner firm for taking photographs of the visitors at Taj Mahal for two years vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner also deposited Rs. 10,000/- by cheque vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 14 of the petition that the petitioner fulfils all the requirements laid down by the respondents. A true copy of the terms and conditions for the grant of licence is Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
(3.) IN paragraph 15 of the petition it is alleged that in the year 2000 as per the report of the Selection Committee only 120 persons were found eligible for the grant of photographic licence at historical monuments of District Agra and the Archeological Survey of INdia, Agra issued a list of these 120 persons to be successful candidates. True copy of the same is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Those who were not selected were also issued letters and asked to take back the security deposited by them. True copy of the letter dated 17-9-2002 in this connection is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 3 subsequently issued letter dated 17-12- 2002 to respondent No. 4 by which he revised the terms and conditions of photographic licence for Taj Mahal and other monuments vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the letter dated 17-12-2002 the respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 13-1-2003 for grant of licence to those forms had already been rejected by the Selection Committee and they were not found eligible. True copies of letters dated 13-1-2003 are Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17-12-2002 and letter dated 13-1-2003 on the ground that they are illegal and mala fide.;