M.N. Bhandari, J.By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the order dated 20th November, 2015. The order aforesaid provides manner for grant of license to enter into the game sanctuary. It is as per the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short " the of 1972").

2. It is a case where the Tourism Department, State of Rajasthan issued an advertisement to call for the applications for grant of license for various districts including Sawaimadhopur. The required qualifications were provided therein. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the petitioners along with many others applied for grant of license. They appeared in the selection followed by declaration of result. A separate list was issued for general caste and reserve caste. The name of the petitioners exist in the list of reserve caste. The Forest departments, however, allowed training only to 19 selected candidates of general caste, leaving others. It was in violation of the Rajasthan Tourism Trade (Facilitation and Regulation) Regulations and Rules, 2010 (for short "Regulations of 2010"). It is stated that authority to issue license lies with the Tourism Department. The license should have been granted to all the successful candidates without causing discrimination. The reserve caste candidates were deprived to get license of Nature Guide to enter into the game sanctuary of Ranthambhore.

3. This writ petition has been filed alleging violation of Regulations of 2010, as the selection made by the Tourism Department has been given effect in part. The only reason given to deny license is due to availability of guides in excess to the requirement. The documents have been produced to show requirement of additional hands and if the number of Nature Guides are in excess then there was no reason to allow even 19 candidates to undertake the training and, that too, leaving reserve caste candidates.

4. It is, however, submitted that training of 19 persons of general caste and award of licenses of Nature Guide was challenged by the existing Nature Guide. The writ petition therein was dismissed followed by dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench. In pursuance of it, 19 candidates could get licenses of Nature Guide. The prayer is accordingly to set aside the order dated 20th November, 2015 and respondents be directed to grant license of Nature Guide to the petitioners so as to enter into Reserve Game Sanctuary.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Shyam Arya has opposed this writ petition. It is submitted that the Tourism Department has no authority to select Nature Guides, rather, it remains in the domain of the Chief Wild Life Warden as per Sections 27 and 28 of theof 1972. The Tourism Department can grant license for entry into the monument in the forest or any other monuments or area, as per Rules of 2010 other than the reserve game sanctuary, which is governed by the of 1972.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have made a reference to the presence of the officer of the Forest Department while making selection by the Tourism Department. The mere presence of one officer does not mean that Sections 27 and 28 of theof 1972 would have no effect or to be made redundant. The Act of 1972 is a Central Act and even if the Rules were made subsequently in the year 2010, it cannot be applied in violation to the Central Act. In view of the above, permit to enter into the game sanctuary can be given only by the Chief Wild Life Warden and none else. The order dated 20th November, 2015 makes a reference of it and, accordingly, as and when the applications would be invited by the competent authority for grant of permit, the petitioners can apply.

7. So far as the training of 19 persons is concerned, the challenge to it has not been made herein and, otherwise, remained unsuccessful in a writ petition filed by the other Nature Guides. The special appeal thereupon was also dismissed. The training of 19 persons was not pursuant to the selection made by the Tourism Department and, in any case, in absence of challenge to it, need not to be addressed. The prayer is accordingly to dismiss the writ petitions as the selection of the Guides by the Tourism Department cannot for entering into game sanctuary.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

9. The principal issue for decision is as to whether the Tourism Department can issue licenses for entry into the Reserve Game Sanctuary and in the present case, Ranthambhore, National Game Sanctuary.

10. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Shyam Arya has made a reference of Sections 27 and 28 of theof 1972. Accordingly, Sections 27 and 28 of theof 1972 are quoted hereunder for ready reference :

"27. Restriction on entry in sanctuary. -

(1) No person other than

(a) a public servant on duty,

(b) a person who has been permitted by the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer to reside within the limits of the sanctuary,

(c) a person who has any right over immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary,

(d) a person passing through the sanctuary along a public highway, and

(e) the dependants of the person referred to in clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c). shall enter or reside in the sanctuary, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted under section 28.

(2) Every person shall, so long as he resides in the sanctuary, be bound -

(a) to prevent the commission, in the sanctuary, of an offence against this Act;

(b) where there is reason to believe that any such offence against this Act has been committed in such sanctuary, to help in discovering and arresting the offender;

(c) to report the death of any wild animal and to safeguard its remains until the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer takes charge thereof; While all efforts have been made to maintain the accuracy of this information, relevant official gazettes may be consulted for authenticity. Sanctuary Asia will not be responsible for any loss due to the information available on this website. Any discrepancy found may kindly be brought to our notice.

(d) to extinguish any fire in such sanctuary of which he has knowledge or information and to prevent from spreading, by any lawful means in his power, any fire within the vicinity of such sanctuary of which he has knowledge or information; and

(e) to assist any Forest Officer, Chief Wild Life Warden, Wild Life Warden or Police Officer demanding his aid for preventing the commission of any offence against this Act or in the investigation of any such offence.

(3) No person shall, with intent to cause damage to any boundary-mark of a sanctuary or to cause wrongful gain as defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), alter, destroy, move or deface such boundary-mark.

(4) No person shall tease or molest any wild animal or litter the grounds of sanctuary.

28. Grant of Permit. - (1) The Chief Wild Life Warden may, on application, grant to any person a permit to enter or reside in a sanctuary for all or any of the following purposes, namely:-

(a) investigation or study of wild life and purposes ancillary or incidental thereto;

(b) photography;

(c) scientific research;

(d) tourism;

(e) transaction of lawful business with any person residing in the sanctuary.

(2) A permit to enter or reside in a sanctuary shall be issued subject to such conditions and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed."

11. The perusal of the the provision quoted above makes it clear that nobody can enter into the Game Sanctuary unless permission is granted by the Chief Wild Life Warden. In view of the above, the Tourism Department is not competent to issue licenses for entry in to the Game Sanctuary. It can issue licenses for any monument in the forest areas but it would be limited to the monuments and not beyond that. Such a Guide cannot work as Nature Guide and if any such Guide exists, it cannot be said to be in consonance to the provisions of the of 1972, however, no adverse order is passed against them as not before this court and the issue is decided in reference to the controversy raised by the parties.

12. The selection of the petitioners is by the Tourism Department. No doubt, it is true that that apart from the petitioners, 19 others were also selected and have been permitted to act as a Nature Guide. The fact, however, remains that those 19 candidates were not granted licenses by the Tourism Department, but, the decision for it has been taken by the Forest Department. The licenses/permission granted to them was challenged before this Court, but, the writ petition was dismissed. It may be in the hands of the existing Nature Guides. The Division Bench also dismissed the special appeal therein thus grant of permission to 19 persons was maintained and in these writ petitions, challenge is not to the licenses/permission to those 19 persons but is of the order dated 20th November, 2015 and to seek licenses for entering into the game sanctuary.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners have made a reference of certain judgments of this court where on the selection of the Guides by the Tourism Department, they were permitted to enter into the game sanctuary, that too, in Ranthambhore Game Sanctuary.

14. I have gone through the judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioners and find that in none of the cases, controversy of the competence to issue licenses/permission was decided and, more specifically, in reference to Sections 27 and 28 of theof 1972. Those judgments were decided without propounding a ratio on the issue of competence to grant permission/licenses thus will have no bearing and, otherwise, the issue was decided on different set of facts.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on the Regulations of 2010 issued by the State of Rajasthan. The learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Shyam Arya has referred Sections 27 and 28 of theof 1972 to show that Tourism Department has no competence or authority to issue license to enter into the game sanctuary, rather, authority for it lies with the Chief Wild Life Warden. Accordingly, the rules cannot be allowed to be read contrary to the of 1972. It is morso when, it is central legislation and governs the game sanctuaries.

16. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions for challenge the order dated 20th November, 2015. The claim pursuant to the selection made by the Tourism Department is not tenable for seeking license as Nature Guide.

17. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.

18. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.