1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.783/2009 (Pradeep Patwa & ors. Vs. Union of India & anr.) Date of Order :: 11th May 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Nikhil Dungawat for Dr. Pushpendra Singh for the petitioners .... BY THE COURT: By filing this joint petition for writ, the petitioners, while claiming themselves having acquired 'specialization in foreign language for the purpose of becoming Language Interpreters' and further claiming themselves being 'associated with private tourism companies who arrange tours', have alleged that they are being harassed and humiliated by the respondents and are being framed in false complaints and cases inspite of proper credentials. While further alleging that they are not being given proper protection and their grievances are not being redressed despite having made representations, the petitioners have claimed the following reliefs:- ''A/ By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give protection to the petitioners who are working as Language interpreters/translators so that they are no more harassed by the respondents and may be given protection by the respondents to the extent that they can peacefully work as well as earn their livelihood while acting lawfully as escorts and tourist managers and translators/interpreters at public places and other tourist places. B/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to restrain any authority or private person from hampering or causing impediment in the work of the petitioners. 2 C/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to facilitate and protect the right to livelihood of the petitioners while directing the respondents to protect the petitioners from other private and local agencies working within the domain of the respondents. D/ Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. E/ Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.” The petitioners have averred that they are associated with the tourism industry since long and are rendering their services as Translators or Language Interpreters; and have placed on record collectively the copies of their marks-sheets pertaining to educational qualifications as Annexure-1 and then, collectively the copies of their so-called foreign language certificates as Annexure-2. The petitioners have averred that they are associated with private tourism companies who are authorised and recognized by the appropriate government and who arrange for the tours. According to the petitioners, while escorting the foreign tourists, they act as ‘trusted agents of the recognized tour companies’ and form a crucial link in the comprehensive tour packages. The petitioners claim themselves acting as ‘tourism ambassadors’ of the country and the tourist managers with foreign tourists; and that success of the industry depends on the services provided by 3 them. The petitioners have averred that in the garb of protection to the foreign tourists and under the unlawful influence of every local tourist sector, the respondents harass and humiliate them; and inspite of proper credentials, they are being framed in false complaints and cases. The petitioners have further alleged that they are driven away from the local tourists spots in the name of protection of tourists; and that they have time and again reasoned out with the authorities in different sectors like Jaipur, Udaipur and Jaisalmer but in vain. It is alleged that the authorities act in hostile and offensive manner causing distress to the tourists while hampering the right of livelihood of the petitioners. While claiming that they had received recommendations and commendations from the tourists as well as the companies and that they enjoy full confidence of the tourism industry and 'if left to themselves, they can carry on with their trade rather than getting engaged in a futile exercise of escaping the authoritarian indulgence', the petitioners have alleged having made representations at all levels but the local tourism authorities having failed to redress their grievances. Arguing for the petitioners and stating their grievances, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are not allowed to carry on with their vocation in an arbitrary manner on the tactics adopted by the respondents; and are 4 unnecessarily threatened despite being qualified interpreters; and that appropriate directions deserve to be issued to the respondents. Learned counsel also submitted that in a similar matter, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has issued notices to the concerned respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the petition, this Court is unable to find even a semblance of cause of action so as to entertain this writ petition and to consider issuing any writ, order or direction against the respondents, the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan. A blank reference to the fact about issuance of notices by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in a similar matter is difficult to be co-related with the present matter. Neither the particulars of any such case are available nor its subject matter. So far the present petitioners are concerned, there is not an iota of evidence available on record so as to find any legal right in the petitioners on their claim of being working as language interpreters/translators. The averments in the petition suggest that the petitioners are attached to and working for certain unspecified private tour operators but then, there is nothing on record to even remotely show if the petitioners have been recognized by the respondents as the 5 so-called interpreters/translators; and if they have been authorised to work as such by any recognized tour operator in accordance with law so as to be invested with any legal right whose infringement could be considered by the Court. Moreover, this petition has been filed essentially seeking mandamus against the respondents but it does not appear if, before filing this petition, the petitioners even served a notice on the respondents stating their claim and grievances. A cursory suggestion has been made in the petition that the petitioners have made representations at all levels but not a copy of any such representation has been placed on record. It remains trite that a mandamus cannot be asked without existence of legal right; and there must be judicially enforceable and legally protected right before suggesting a legal grievance and asking for mandamus. As noticed, in the present case, nothing is available to find a legal right in the petitioners. Even the allegations of harassment, humiliation, and foisting of false cases remain uncertain and omnibus. It is difficult to find as towards whom such allegations are directed against; apart from the fact that not a single documentary evidence has been placed on record even in this regard. This petition remains totally bereft of substance and does not merit admission. 6 The petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK