Quashed

Chanakya Suraksha Dal v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Home Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Oct 2023WP/4431/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench High Court of Bombay held under Article 227 that administrative orders cancelling a private security licence were invalid due to lack of proof of service of compliance notices. The court quashed the orders and directed revival of the application.

What did the court decide?

Licence cancellation orders quashed; authority directed to consider renewal application within 12 weeks.

Chanakya Suraksha Dal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:31682

¶2

WP 4431-2023.doc

¶3

Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4431 OF 2023

¶5

Chanakya Suraksha Dal .Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents

¶8

Mr. Arya Sapre a/w. Mr. Gaurav Pande & Ms. Sakshi Mane, Advocate, for the Petitioner

¶9

Ms. M. S. Srivastava, AGP, for the Respondent – State

¶10

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 06.10.2023

¶11

P. C.

¶12

The Petitioner, by the present Writ Petition fled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is challenging legality and validity of the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Controlling offcer alias Joint Police Commissioner (Administration), Greater Mumbai as well as the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority alias Additional Chief Secretary(Appeal & Security) in Appeal No. PSA-0621/Pra. Kra. 131/Visha-4. By the impugned order dated 27.11.2020, licence granted to the Petitioner on 08.02.2008 was cancelled from the date of expiry of the period of said licence and the said order has been confrmed by said order dated 18.11.2022. The said orders are passed on the assumption that inspite of

¶13

1 of 4

¶14

WP 4431-2023.doc

¶15

communicating to the Petitioner on several occasions to comply with certain requirements, the same were not complied with.

¶16

It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had obtained a licence bearing No. MAH/2008/65 under the name and style as “M/s. Chanakya Security & Intelligence Squad” for engaging in the business of Private Security Agency. The said licence was for a period of fve years. Thereafter, it was renewed for a further period of fve years. Thereafter, the Petitioner again applied for renewal of the same. By letter dated 08.04.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Head Quarter – 1), offce of Police Commissioner, Mumbai, it was informed to the Petitioner that the word “Intelligence” be deleted and the documents in the new name be submitted to the authority. It is the submission of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has complied with the said requirements and accordingly, has changed the name to “M/s. Chanakya Security & Squad”. It appears that it is the case of the Respondents that certain other requirements are yet to be fulflled by the Petitioner and inspite of communication in this regard, the Petitioner has not complied with the same. However, it is the case of the Petitioner that no such communication is served on the Petitioner. The impugned orders have been passed on the

¶17

2 of 4

¶18

WP 4431-2023.doc

¶19

assumption that from time to time, the Petitioner was asked to comply with certain requirements which the Petitioner failed to comply.

¶20

Learned AGP has failed to indicate any communication addressed to the Petitioner to demonstrate that the Petitioner was informed to comply with the said requirements. Both the impugned orders are passed on the same ground. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner was informed to comply with the said requirements. It is the contention of learned AGP that internal communication dated 29.08.2019 which requires the Petitioner to comply with necessary requirements is annexed to the Petition and therefore, the Petitioner was aware about the said requirements. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has obtained various documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 after passing of the impugned order dated 18.11.2022. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said internal communication has been served upon the Petitioner at the relevant time. In any case, there is nothing on record to show that it was communicated to the Petitioner that certain further requirements are required to be complied with. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot sustain.

¶21

3 of 4

¶22

WP 4431-2023.doc

¶23

Accordingly, the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Controlling offcer alias Joint Police Commissioner (Administration), Greater Mumbai as well as the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority alias Additional Chief Secretary (Appeal & Security) are quashed & set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the Petitioner’s Application for renewal of licence in the new name as “M/s. Chanakya Suraksha Dal” as per the letter dated 28.05.2019 annexed at page 50 to the Writ Petition. At this stage, learned AGP states that the authority to issue such a licence is now vested in Respondent No. 2. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 or Respondent No. 3 is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks from today by considering the Application dated 28.05.2019 fled by the Petitioner and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

¶24

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.

¶25

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

¶26

4 of 4

Chanakya Suraksha Dal v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Home Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanakya Suraksha Dal v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Home Dept. 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

Arun Taranath Padte and Anr. Vs Vijay Taranath Padate

Kavita Ashok Jethwa Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Thr Office of Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Amol Dattatraya Patil Vs the District Collector Raigad and Ors.

Satish v. Ratnaparkhi Vs University of Mumbai, Thr. Its Registrar

Bhaskar Mani S/O. S. v. Mani Vs Neena Bhatnagar W/O. Bhaskar Mani and Anr.

Mansura Toufik Mujawar and Anr. Vs Toufik Usmangani Mujawar and Ors.