S. Ravichandran and Others vs The Director, The Tamil Nadu Tourism Department, Tamil Nadu Tourism Complex, Walaja Road, Chennai -600 002, The Executive Officer, Shri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Thirukkoil, Madurai and The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai

M. Jaichandren

Heard Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. K. M.Vijaya Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3, as well as Mr. S. Manohar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioners cannot be prevented from working as a Guide without the sanction of law. Therefore, the respondents cannot prevent the petitioners from entering into the temple to work as a Guide. However, the police personnel posted near the Shri Meenakshi Amman Temple, Madurai, are asking the petitioners to produce identity cards issued, either by the Department of Tourism, Government of Tamil Nadu, or by the temple authorities.

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3 had submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued a Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.192, Information and Tourism (T3) Department, dated 05.09.2006, prescribing the qualifications for the Guides, training procedures, etc. Only such persons, who had undergone the training as Guides, would be given the identity cards.

It has also been submitted that 300 persons had been selected and trained by the Anna Institute of Management, Chennai, as provided under the said Government Order, dated 05.09.2006. It has also been submitted that the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.192, Information and Tourism (T3) Department, dated 05.09.2006, has been issued to train the Guides, to project the correct image of the country, by giving the factual information, and also keeping in mind the satisfaction and the wellbeing of the tourists, and to ensure that their visit is made pleasant and satisfactory.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had placed before this Court, an order of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 08.08.2007, made in W.A.No.2343 of 2004, wherein certain guidelines have been prescribed for the issuance of licence to the Temple Guides. As such, only those persons, who are qualified to perform the functions of a Guide, as per the guidelines issued by this Court, would be issued the necessary licence. In the said order, it has been stated that no person should be given a licence in violation of the guidelines issued by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.

It has also been stated that the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, had issued certain guidelines, by his Government Letter (1D) No.236, dated 31.07.2006, which has been incorporated in the order passed by this Court, on 08.08.2007, in W.A.No.2343 of 2004.

In view of the above, it is clear that a person can practise as a Tourist Guide or as a Temple Guide only in accordance with the guidelines incorporated in the order of this Court, dated 08.08.2007, made in W.A.No.2343 of 2004 and by obtaining the necessary licence and the identity card. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.