The Court held that since the nine security guards involved were already allotted to other employers two years prior, there was no necessity to entertain the present petition. The legal contentions were noted as open to be dealt with in Writ Petition No.1961 of 2007, and the petition was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AJN
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2401 OF 2005
Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghathana. ... Petitioners
Vs.
Airport Authority of India & Anr. ... Respondents
Ms. Jane Cox for the petitioners.
Ms. L.S. Munim i/b M/s. R. Kothari & Co. for respondent 1.
Mr. R.D. Suvarna for respondent 3.
Ms. C.S. Desai for respondent 2.
Mr. C.U. Singh i/b. Mr. A. Haindaday for respondent 5.
CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 12, 2007.
P.C.:-
Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay & Thane District, following averments are made.
AJN
2
“7. With further reference to the said paragraph, I say that with the exception of Y.M. Pawar, all other guards are as of this date, working with the Principal employers to whom they have been allotted. I say that Security Guard Y.M. Pawar has not reported to the Respondent No.2 till date.”
[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]
[DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding non-reporting of security guards and their allotment to other employers required to be entertained.
Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghathana
Airport Authority of India
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
Respondent No.5
Ranjana Desai
D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
