J.K. Tandon, J.
1. The petitioner held a certificate dated 11-10-1941 from the Superintendent of Police Varanasi to the effect that he was of good character and possessed knowledge about the city of Varanasi. He used to work as guide. In 1956, the Senior Superintendent of Police of the same place informed him that the certificate given to him on 11-10-1941 had been cancelled as his conduct had not been found to be becoming of a guide. On receipt of this letter the petitioner wrote to the Senior Superintendent of Police Varanasi asking him to supply the specific charges against him but no reply was sent.
The petitioner's complaint accordingly is that he does not know the charges against him and the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police cancelling the certificate, which was made without giving an opportunity to show cause, is itself illegal and invalid. Incidentally he has also referred that he was employed as a guide in Hotel-de-Paris at Varanasi Cantt but on the information having been sent to the Manager of the said hotel that his certificate had been cancelled his services as a guide were discontinued by the hotel. The petitioner's grievance is that the cancellation of his certificate violated the principles of natural justice, as neither charges were communicated to him nor an opportunity was given to him to show cause.
The cancellation by the Senior Superintendent of. Police of the certificate was, it is said, done on a report from the Tourist Reception and Information Officer. This again is challenged Lastly, it is urged that the order infringed his fundamental right to carry on his profession.
2. The relief asked is that the order dated 11-9-1956 cancelling the certificate issued in 1941 be quashed and a mandamus is also asked against the Tourist Reception and Information Officer Varanasi restraining him from prohibiting the petitioner to carry on his profession as a guide in Clarks Hotel.
3. The respondents are the Senior Superintendent of Police and the Tourist Reception and Information Officer Varanasi. It is not denied that the petitioner possessed a certificate from the Superintendent of Police which was granted to him in 1941 but was cancelled subsequently in 1956. Their reply, however is that complaints were received against his conduct which were shameful and affected the high name of the country. Copiesof these complaints have been produced which alleged disreputed conduct against the petitioner.
It is however not necessary for the purposes of this petition 'to refer to them here. The respondents next state that the certificate complained of was not a legal document, on the other hand, is usually granted to any guide on an application made by him. The object of issuing these certificates is to enable the tourists, who may be visiting Varanasi to secure the services of reliable persons, i.e., who are so considered by the local authorities; a certificate is however not necessary for carrying on the profession of a guide which a person can, whether a certificate has been granted to him or not.
There is no rule or law which governed the grant of' these certificates which are granted purely on the consideration that a particular individual is considered by the local authorities to be reliable. It is thus denied that the petitioner has any right to obtain this certificate or that it was necessary for the Senior Superintendent of Police to allow him an opportunity to show cause before cancelling his certificate.
4. The petitioner has not shown any rule or other law governing the grant of any such certificate; nor any provision under which it may be necessary for a person carrying on the profession of a guide to obtain a certificate from the authorities. A person can carry on this profession whether any certificate from the Superintendent of Police is held or not by him.
5. The certificate is thus in the nature of a testimonial of good conduct granted to him by the authorities. No person can claim as of right that a certificate shall be granted to him or that any certificate once granted to him shall be continued. There is no right either with respect to it. It is, as already stated above, in the nature of a testimonial which the person granting cannot be compelled to continue. I am not prepared to accept either that it was necessary for the Senior Superintendent of Police to have given an opportunity to the petitioner or to hear him before cancelling tile certificate, more so because its cancellation in no way affected the right of the petitioner to carry on the profession of a guide.
6. There is, to my mind, no substance in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.