Remanded

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Kamgar Union (Intuc) v. the State of Mahrashtra through the Deputy Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jun 2018WP/13724/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court of Bombay directed the respondent board to expedite the selection process for registering security guards and direct appropriate action against the third respondent if violations of the Security Guards Scheme are found after inquiry, within three months. Proceedings were remanded for inquiry with parties permitted to participate.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent No.2 to complete the registration selection process expeditiously and take appropriate action against respondent No.3 within three months if a violation of the Act or Scheme is found

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Kamgar Union… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 8) wp13724-17.doc

¶2

SAS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.13724 OF 2017

¶6

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Kamgar Union (INTUC) ..Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

Mr.Avinash R.Belge for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr.Sandeep L. Babar AGP for respondent No.1 – State.

¶9

Ms.Pallavi Divakar with Mr.Salil Dabke i/b. M/s.Divekar & Co. for respondent No.2.

¶10

Mr.Kiran Bapat with Mr.Ashish Pimple i/b. M/s. Rajeev Talshilkar for respondent No.4 – intervenor.

¶11

Mr.Prasad Dani, Senior Advocate with Mr.Kunal Vaishnav with Mr.Suraj Iyer with Ms.Debashree Mandpe i/b. Ganesh & Co. for respondent No.3.

¶12

CORAM: SHANTANU KEMKAR AND NITIN W.SAMBRE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : JUNE 19, 2018

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

The petitioner by filing this petition under 226 of the

¶16

Constitution of India is seeking the following reliefs :-

¶17

“ a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise powers

¶18

2 8) wp13724-17.doc

¶19

vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature of writ directing respondent No.3 to get itself registered with Security Guards Board, under the Act and the scheme forthwith for their Unit at Nashik and continue to employ the present Security Guards listed at Exhibit 'A' annexed to this petition in their establishment;

¶20

b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate order or direction, directing respondent No.2 to register the Security Guards listed at Exhibit 'A' after completing the selection process as per G.R. 17/10/2013 and allot them to establishment of respondent No.3 as far as possible;

¶21

(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent No.2 to initiate penal action against respondent No.3 as per the provisions of clause 42 of the Security Guards Scheme, 2002. ”

¶22

As regards prayer clause (b) is concerned, it is not in

¶23

3 8) wp13724-17.doc

¶24

dispute that the selection process for registration of the security guards listed at Exhibit 'A' is in process. We direct respondent No.2 to complete the process as expeditiously as possible.

¶25

As regards as prayer clauses (a) and (c) are concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has not got itself registered with the second respondent and has violated the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Security (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 and the schemes framed thereunder. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has however disputed and submits that it has rightly employed Security Guards through respondent No.4 – M/s. Unique Delta Force and now by respondent No.5.

¶26

It is not in dispute that the second respondent has issued a letter dated September 26, 2017 to ensure that there is no illegality or violation committed by the third respondent in appointing the Security Guards.

¶27

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has admitted that after the said notice was issued, no further steps have been taken on it as on date.

¶28

4 8) wp13724-17.doc

¶29

In the circumstances, we dispose of the petition by

¶30

directing respondent No.2 to take appropriate action against respondent No.3, if after the inquiry it is found that respondent No.3 has violated the provisions of the Act and Rules. Let the entire exercise as aforesaid, by completed within period of three months.

¶31

The petitioner is also permitted to participate in the said proceedings and to produce all necessary documents in respect of his contentions.

¶32

With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶33

All contentions of the petitioner and the respondent

¶34

No.3 are kept open.

¶35

( NITIN W.SAMBRE, J. ) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Kamgar Union (Intuc) v. the State of Mahrashtra through the Deputy Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Kamgar Union (Intuc) v. the State of Mahrashtra through the Deputy Secretary 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

Venkat Sri Maithreya Vs Bank of Baroda

Umidali Jairazbhoy S/O. Late Sultanali Jairazbhoy Vs the Collector Mumbai City and Anr.

Il and Fs Transportation Networks Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 Ors.

Smt. Shakuntala B. Mande and Ors. Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Panchmukhi Chs through Its Chairman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Neelam Choudhary Vs Union of India and Ors.