Dismissed

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Mar 2011WP/7022/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Government Resolution that constituted a committee to report on Advisory Committee issues. The court held the Resolution was only recommendatory and did not affect the petitioner's rights under the relevant Act, leaving the challenge to the committee's report maintainable in the future.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed with liberty to challenge the decision of the State Government if taken based on the Committee's recommendation.

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

wp7022.10

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7022 OF 2010

¶6

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi : Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents ....

¶9

Mr.Susheel Mahadeshwar i/b. Ranjana Todankar for the petitioner. Ms Molina Thakur, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1.

¶10

Ms Lata Desai with Dr.Pallavi Divekar for respondent no.2.

¶11

... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ.

¶12

DATE : MARCH 30, 2011.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

This Petition takes exception to the Government Resolution dated 28.6.2010 (exh.`C’). On perusing the said Government Resolution, in our opinion, it does not either create any liability or affect the right of the petitioner, in any manner, who is already enjoying the benefits available in terms of the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. The purport of the Resolution, however, is only to constitute a Committee which, in turn, would submit its report/recommendation to the State Government with

¶15

¶16

wp7022.10

¶17

regard to the issues raised by the Advisory Committee. We fail to understand as to how the petitioner can interdict the process of consideration by the State Government. The grievance made in this petition is founded on the apprehension that adverse decision would be taken by the Government. Assuming that such adverse decision were to be taken, the petitioner would be free to challenge that decision, but cannot be allowed to interdict the process of consideration of some issue raised by the Advisory Committee. The argument of the petitioner is that the impugned Government Resolution is issued in exercise of powers under section 8(4) of the Act of 1981. It is submitted that the said power can be exercised by the State Government to issue directions; and considering the purport of the Government Resolution, that power cannot be exercised to constitute a Committee to examine the issues raised by the Advisory Committee. Indeed, the Government Resolution makes a reference to section 8(4) of the Act of 1981. However, that would make no difference to the outcome and the challenge in this petition. As aforesaid, the purport of the Government Resolution dated 28.6.2010 is only to constitute a Committee to inquire into the matters raised by the Advisory Board and the report of the said Committee would be only of recommendatory in nature. Neither the State Government nor any other stake holders referable to the provisions of the Act of 1981 would be

¶18

¶19

wp7022.10

¶20

affected, in any manner, by such recommendation.

¶21

In the circumstances, this petition, in our opinion, is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed with liberty to challenge the decision of the State Government, if taken on the basis of the recommendation made by the Committee constituted under the impugned Resolution. Those aspects will be considered on its own merits.

¶22

(A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

¶23

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharsahtra Vs Veena Sippy and Ors.

Gangaram Atmaram Khambal Vs Vidyamandir High School and Ors.

Subiya Ayyub Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Gangadhar v Kayande.Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nitin Sahebrao Pawdamal Vs Swati Nitin Pawdamal

Nitin Sahebrao Pawdamal Vs Swati Vitthal Dolare