Y.K.Singhal, J. - (1.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the excursion agents and travel agents should take the services of the guides who have been authorised by the Archaeological Officer in terms of Rule 8(d) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 or they should be guides approved by the department of Tourism of Archaeology of the State Govt. in respect of the State Monuments and the unauthorised persons who have not been granted the licence/identity cards should not be allowed to perform the function as a guide.
(2.) The submission of Mr. Sharma is that there should be a prohibitory order directing the authorities that in case the excursion agents or the travel agents employ any person as a guide for the services as a guide then action should be taken against such excursion agents/travel agents. The arguments on behalf of the respondents is that so far as the services as a guide are provided by the authorised guides in respect of the State monuments, the work is undertaken only by those persons who have been authorised by the Archaeological department or the tourist department. It is denied by them that any unauthorised persons have ever been authorised as a guide.
(3.) The arguments of Mr. Dhingra, learned counsel for the intervenor is that he has wrongly been referred in the writ petition as a tout when he is an authorised guide by the Govt. of India.;