Dismissed

M/S New Top Industrial Protection Security Group through Its Proprietor v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Another

Bombay HC3 Jul 2023WP/7201/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay held that it cannot exercise writ jurisdiction to recover outstanding dues owed by a Municipal Corporation to a private security agency, directing the petitioner to avail statutory remedies instead.

What did the court decide?

Petition not entertained and disposed off.

What the court decided

M/S New Top Industrial Protection Security Group… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

64 WRIT PETITION NO.7201 OF 2023

¶4

M/S NEW TOP INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION SECURITY GROUP
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND
ANOTHER

¶7

Mr.N.P.Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, AGP for the Respondent / State.

¶8

DATE : JULY 3, 2023

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

1.The Petitioner is an Industrial Protection Security Group,

¶11

having business all over the State. It is a proprietory firm , which is
providing security staff to the Industrial units, co-operative bodies and
Government entities. By this petition, the Petitioner has put forth
prayer clause 'B' as under :-

¶12

"B. The Respondent No. 2 may please be directed to forthwith pay the
amount of Rs. 38,48,8000/- towards 20 Security Guards provided by
the petitioner for the period from 02.11.2012 to 30.04.2015 with 12%
interest thereon w.e.f. 02.12.2012 as per the sanction accorded by the
Standing Committee of Latur Municipal Corporation under Resolution

¶13

khs/July 2023/7201

¶14

dated 20.11.2015, by issuing writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus."

¶15

2.The learned AGP submits that the writ of mandamus of this
Court cannot be pressed into service for the purpose of recovery of
certain dues of the Petitioner purportedly payable by the Municipal
Corporation. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner points out a typed
copy of a Resolution dated 20.11.2015 purportedly passed by the
Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation in which it is
resolved that the Petitioner should be paid Rs.7,400/- p.m. per guard.

¶16

3.This Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction for recovery
of outstanding bills of a private security agency. The Petitioner has to
avail of a statutory remedy as may be permissible in Law.

¶17

4.In view of the above we would not entertain this petition
and the same is, therefore disposed off.

¶18

 ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶19

khs/July 2023/7201

M/S New Top Industrial Protection Security Group through Its Proprietor v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

M/S New Top Industrial Protection Security Group through Its Proprietor v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director Babulal Gurjar Vs Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Another

Digvijaysing Ganeshsing Bayas Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary Industry and Others

Sandipan Pralhad Alias Babarao Bade through General Power of Attorney Holder Uddhav Babarao Bade Vs the Union of India through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Laxmibai Balnath Zinjurde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Superintendent of Police Rural and Others

Nandkumar Vasant Vidhate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Math Prakashnath Buwa Alias Garibnath Buwa through Its Sole Trustee Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others