IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27858 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SHINE.T.D., THOOMBUNKALHOUSE, AROOR.P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 2. PRIYANKAR RISHI, HOUSE NO.2/623 NADUVILE VEETTIL, KUNNUMPURAM, FORT KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF TOURISM, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TRANSPORT BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001. 3. REGIONAL DIRECTOR(SOUTH), INDIA TOURISM REGIONAL OFFICE, 154, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600002. 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INDIA TOURISM, WELLINGDON ISLAND, NORTH END, KOCHI-682009. 5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ARCHEOLOGY SURVEY OF INDIA, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110011. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, TOURISM DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 7. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM PARK VIEW, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. WPC NO.27858/11 -2- 8. KERALA INSITTUTE OF TOURISM AND TRAVEL STUDIES (KITTS) RESIDENCY,THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R1 - 5 SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.K.JOHN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.27858/11 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGIONAL LEVEL LICENCE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGIONAL LEVEL LICENCE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THEM GUIDELINES FOR GRANT OF GUIDE LICENSES ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF REGIONAL LEVEL GUIDES 2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17-8-10 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18-9-09 OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ON 25-6-11. EXT.P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2-8-11 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 24-8-11 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 767/RIA/11 DATED 24-9-11 OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 770/RIA/11 DATED 28-9-11 OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.645/2011/TSM DATED 25-1-11. EXT.P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE NAMES OF APPROVED TOURIST GUIDES PUBLISHED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27858 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are licenced Guides having Regional level licences issued by the Government of India. In this writ petition, they are mainly aggrieved by Ext.P12, an order issued by the State Government granting administrative sanction for the conduct of training for State and Local level Guides in the manner as provided therein. 2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the giving of training to Guides is a matter which is exclusively within the domain of the Central Government and that the matter is fully governed by Exts.P3 and P4 guidelines issued by the Central Government. On this basis, it is contended that the State Government had no power to issue Ext.P12. 3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. Ext.P3, the guidelines issued by the Central Government shows that it contains different courses for Guides WPC No. 27858/11 :2 : such as Regional Guides, State Level Guides as also Local Guides. While the Regional Guides are to be trained by the Department of Tourism, Government of India, when it comes to the State Level Guides and the Local Guides, they are to be trained by the State Governments. In so far as the educational qualification for State Level Guides and Local Guides are concerned, that also has been laid down in Ext.P3. 5. A reading of Ext.P12 shows that the administrative sanction granted by the State Government is regarding the training of State and Local Level Guides. As already seen from Ext.P3, in so far as the training of State and Local Level Guides are concerned, that is a matter which is exclusively within the domain of the State Government. If that be so, one cannot contend that the grant of administrative sanction by the State Government is beyond its power. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that if without assessment of the requirements of the tourism industry, training is given and licences are granted, that will result in further unemployment. 6. In a competitive industry, survival of the fittest is always the rule. Therefore, depending upon the efficiency of the WPC No. 27858/11 :3 : licenced Guides, the efficient will survive and the inefficient will perish. The likelihood of such a possibility and potential for unemployment can be no reason to hold that the proposal of the Government granting administrative sanction for commencing training programme is illegal. Further, since the petitioners are Regional Level Guides, there cannot be any competition between them and State or Local Level Guides. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp