Gallery Artchill vs State of Rajasthan and Another

M.N. Bhandari, J.—The matter has come up on an application for vacation of stay order. However, with the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.

By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the action of Respondents denying continuance of license to the Petitioner for running an art gallery in Amber Fort.

It is submitted that pursuant to initial license granted, the Petitioner incurred a huge amount for development of art gallery. It was not only to the benefit of tourists but was to help the artists in State of Rajasthan. Within a short period, huge amount running in lacs was paid to the artists. Dis-continuance of license is mainly on the ground under given in Annexure - 10 wherein the case of the Petitioner is considered at item No. 17. It is for the reason that Petitioner is having separate outlet at main M.I. Road, the art gallery is not promoting Handicraft but to contemporary paintings and may distract the tourists from monuments experience in a discriminatory manner. It is submitted that a book stall having show room at M.I. Road was continued with the license. The contemporary paintings come with definition of Handicraft and it is not necessary that every tourist would be visited the gallery. The denial of license is even for alleged distraction of monument experience of tourists, which can even be in a book stall and other such Art Gallery.

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing of behalf of Respondents submits that decision at Annex.10 has been taken pursuant to the direction given by this Court in the case of Suo Moto v. State and Ors. reported in 2010(1) WLC 227. Since it was a decision by the expert body, this Court may not review the order. The Committee has looked into all the aspects and it is not a case in isolation where license has been denied. The Committee taking note of the fact that contemporary paintings cannot fall in the definition of Handicraft, denied continuance of license, even if other grounds are left out. Looking to the aforesaid, the writ petition may be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for parties.

The issue in regard to continuance of commercial activities in Amber Fort came up for consideration in the case supra, therein while deciding the matter following observations were made, which are quoted thus:

The consequence of the aforesaid discussion is that the Society was having no power to enter into agreement and to sign MO Us for grant of permission for commercial activities, such Memos of Understanding are held to be inviolation of the provisions of the law, thus are not allowed to stand. The Respondent Director and Superintendent of Archaeological Department would however, be at liberty to act as per the provisions of the Rules. If at all they feel that commercial activities are to be permitted, they would be to act as per law. Here it is to be made clear that if at all a decision is taken by the competent authority to allow some commercial activities in the area of the protected monument then care should be taken that such commercial activities are directly co-relate to the tourism and the tourists or for advancement of handicraft of the State of Rajasthan as well as of India and commercial activities of any nature different than connected with the tourists or tourism may not be permitted. This observation has been made to avoid increase of commercialization in the area concerned.

If any decision to permit the commercial activities is taken then it should be strictly in consonance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. The conditions narrated in Rule 14 and other Rules should strictly be adhered to. It is seen from the report that some damages have been caused to start commercial activities. It is, hence necessary to observe that while the recommendations of the Committee are implemented, care should be taken and at the same time originality of the monument is maintained. If any part of the monument is allowed to be used for meeting, reception party, conference or entertainment, that can be only under the permission of the Government of Rajasthan. For that aforesaid purpose, compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules is to be made in strict terms.

Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, Respondents were required to look into as to whether any commercial activity is going to promote tourism or the tourist apart from advancement of handicraft of the State of Rajasthan. Since it was a body of expert, the decision taken therein cannot be interfered by the Court in routine manner. Taking aforesaid into consideration, if the order at Annex.- 10 is looked into, reason for denial of license to the Petitioner is coming out as under:

(i) the firm has separate outlet at main M.I. Road

(ii)the activities are not related to promote Handicraft.

(iii) Viewing of paintings needs long time, thus distract the tourists from monuments experience.

Out of three reasons given aforesaid, only reason No. 2 is of concern. If the contemporary painting does not fall in the category of Handicraft, it cannot be said to be for promotion of Handicraft. However, aforesaid issue has not been dealt with in details either while passing the order at Annex.10 or in reply. This is more so when according to the Petitioner, contemporary paintings fall in the category of Handicraft and for that purpose a reference of definition of Handicraft has been given. It has been submitted that paintings are prepared with manual skills and heavy amount has been paid to the artists of Rajasthan. All these facts need consideration.

However, looking to the argument raised by learned Additional Advocate General, instead of deciding the aforesaid issue, I remand the matter to the expert committee to look into it again minutely and if it is found that preparation of the paintings give benefit to artists of Rajasthan and tourism apart from it is falling in the definition of Handicraft, proper view may be taken accordingly.

So far as existence of separate outlet at M.I. Road is concerned, it cannot be ground because there is no direction in the judgment to that effect. In the same way, if artistic thing is viewed by the tourist, it should not be taken as distraction of monuments experience.

With the aforesaid observations and remand of the matter, this writ petition so as the stay petition stands disposed of.

It is expected of the Respondents to look into all the aspects within shortest possible time, which may not more than of one month. For that purpose, if need be, Petitioner may be given opportunity of hearing.

The order at Annex.9 shall remain subject to final outcome of the consideration by the Committee. If, final decision is taken in favour of Petitioner, the effect of Annex.9 will vanish automatically quo them.