Dismissed

Pradeep Shankar Patil and Ors. v. Security Guards Board for Greater Mumbai and Thane and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Sept 2022WP/4725/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition seeking mandatory directives for registration and allotment as security guards. The Court directed the respondent Board to consider applications on merits with reasoned orders if rejected, referencing existing guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Directed to consider applications on merits and pass reasoned orders if not granted; contentions on merits left open.

Pradeep Shankar Patil and Ors. Vs Security Guards… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

16-aswp4725-2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4725 OF 2018

¶4

Pradeep Shankar Patil & Ors. }..Petitioners

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Security Guards Board for } Greater Mumbai and Thane } District & Ors. }..Respondents

¶7

Ms. Sonali Humane i/by Ms. Ranjana Todankar for the petitioners.

¶8

Ms. Pavitra Manesh i/by Mr. Meelan S. Topkar for respondent no.1.

¶9

Ms. M. S. Yasmeen Sabir i/by Link Legal India Law Services for respondent no.2.

¶10

Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for respondent no.4/State.

¶11

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. & MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

¶12

DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2022

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. This writ petition has been instituted by the petitioners seeking, inter alia , the following reliefs: -

¶15

“(a) 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 the Respondent No. 1 to register the Petitioners as Security guards and to allot them to the Respondent No. 2 establishment.

¶16

(b) 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

¶17

¶18

J. V. Salunkhe, PS.

¶19

16-aswp4725-2018

¶20

the Respondent No. 1 to initiate action against the Respondent No. 2 as per the provisions of clause 42 of the Security Guards Scheme, 2002.

¶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 the Respondent No. 2 to get itself register with the Respondent no. 1 Board.”

¶22

2. We heard learned advocates for the parties.

¶23

3. A coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 8^th February 2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 2939 of 2016 ( Pune District Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ) has laid down guidelines for expediting decisions on the applications made for registration of security guards.

¶24

4. We dispose of this writ petition with a direction upon the respondent no. 1 to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners on their own merits, in accordance with law and in the light of the directions made in Pune District Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union (supra) without any delay.

¶25

5. All contentions on merits are left open.

¶26

6. If in any particular case, the application of a security guard is not granted, the respondent no. 1 shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the applicant.

¶27

7. No costs.

¶28

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2022.09.21 17:48:57 +0530

¶29

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

¶31

J. V. Salunkhe, PS.

Pradeep Shankar Patil and Ors. v. Security Guards Board for Greater Mumbai and Thane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Shankar Patil and Ors. v. Security Guards Board for Greater Mumbai and Thane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Yashwantrao Nigade Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Pune Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Pramod Lunawat Vs the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation Thr. Municipal Commissioner

Rrajeev Mohan Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

A.H. Wadia Trust and Ors. Vs District Deputy Registrar Co-Op. Soc. and Ors.

Prakash Borulkar Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors.

Suman Bairagi Vs Uniion of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Defence and Ors.