Remanded

Industrial Guards Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Stat of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Nov 2005WP/115/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a showcause notice and subsequent order on the grounds of lack of reasons. Following analogy with a Division Bench judgment that remanded a similar order for being unreasoned, the court dismissed a contempt plea and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; case remanded to respondent 3 to decide afresh after hearing.

Industrial Guards Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Stat of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 115 OF 2005

¶4

Industrial Guards Services Pvt.Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus. State of Maharashtra & others. ... Respondents.

¶5

Shri C.U.Singh i/by Shri R.D.Suvarna for the petitioner. Ms.Madhulata Kajabe, A.G.P. for respondent 1.

¶6

Shri M.S.Tophar for respondents 2 & 3.

¶7

CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI &

¶8

ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.

¶9

DATED : 24th November, 2005.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for hearing

¶12

forthwith.

¶13

The petitioners have impugned in this petition showcause notice dated 9th March 2004 issued by the Secretary of respondent 3 and the order dated 16th

¶14

August 2004 passed by respondent 3. We have heard the

¶15

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

Our attention is drawn to the order dated 26th April 2005 passed in Writ Petition No.2946 of 2004 by the Division Bench of this Court. It appears that the

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

Division	Bench	was dealing	wit	h th	e id	entical	facts	and
similar comm	unication	dated	16th		August	2004		was
challenged	in the	said writ	pet	ition.	It	appears		that
since the	impugned	order d	ated	16th	August	2005	wa	s not
a reasoned	order,	relying on	the	judg	ment	of the		Supreme
Court in	Mohinder	singh Gill		v/s.		Chief		Election
Commissioner,	New	Delhi, AIR	1978	SC	851,	the		impugned
order was	set	aside and	the	matter	was	reman	ded	to
respondent 3	to p	ass a	fresh	order	after	consid	ering	the
representation	made	by the	petiti	oner.	Sinc	e i	n	the
present case	also	similar		commu	nication	is		under
challenge, w	e see	no reason	why	we	should	not		follow
order dated	26th	April	2005	passed	in	Writ		Petition

¶19

No.2946 of 2004. We find that the communication in the

¶20

instant case also does not contain any reasons.

¶21

4.	The learned	counsel a	ppearing f	or the respondent
1	contended that	the	petition	ers are in	contempt	and
despite	the orders	passed	by	this court, they	have	not
paid	the amount.	She	also	submitted that	the	contempt
petition	is pending.	We	find	that even in	Writ	Petition
No.2946	of 2004	also	similar	contention was	raised.	In
fact	in the affida	vit	filed	by the	Chairman	of
respondent	3 in	paragr	aph	6, this grievance	was	raised.
Obviously,	therefore,		after	considering	all	these