Dismissed

M/S Balaji Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India

Chhattisgarh HC28 Nov 2023WPC/4956/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a one-year security license and directed the authorities to decide the pending renewal application expeditiously despite the original license having already lapsed, stating the petition was filed after expiry when it should have been challenged within the validity period.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, but Respondents were directed to decide the pending renewal application filed by the Petitioner on expedited basis.

M/S Balaji Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 4956 of 2023

¶5

M/s Balaji Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Addressed At- Chandrahas Vihar, Mig 43, Sector 2, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Represented Through The Authorized Signatory, Deepak Kumar Dewangan, S/o Shri Yashwant Kumar Dewangan, Aged 34 Years, R/o Village Saragaon, District Raipur (C.G.) Adhar No. 9257- 0456-9521

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Union Of India Through Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of India, New Delhi.

¶9

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Naya Raipur.

¶10

The Principal Home Secretary Cum Appellate Authority Government Of Chhattisgarh, Naya Raipur

¶11

The Joint Secretary Cum Controlling Authority Home Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Naya Raipur

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner	: Mr. Dev Prakash Singh, learned advocate appears through Video Conferencing from High Court of Patna (Bihar) assisted by Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1	: Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, C.G.C.
For State/respondents No.2 to 4	: Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Additional A.G.

¶14

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

28.11.2023

¶18

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶19

2. By way of this petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution

¶20

of India petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

¶21

10.1 For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to make the necessary endorsement on the petitioner's license issued u/s 7 of the act vide its letter no. PSARA/(42/11)/358/2022/Grih-C dated 20/04/2022 indicating the validity upto 19/04/2023 instead of 19/04/2027.

¶22

10.2 For issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the first proviso of section 4 of the act, 2005 as inoperative in accordance with the validity of rule 5 (10) of Chhattisgarh State Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2021, which erupted due to the arbitrary and ultra vires action of reduction of the validity period of the license guaranteed u/s 7(5)(a) of the act, 2005 by the Respondents.

¶23

10.3 Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the communication by the Respondent-4 to file renewal of license u/s 8 of the act just after the lapse of just one year prematurely from the date of the issuance of license when the same is based on grounds of its validity up to five years r/w rule 5(10) of Chhattisgarh State Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2021.

¶24

¶25

10.4 Further, for holding the operation of section 4...as in operative till the correction of the validity of license issued on 20.04.2022 for 5 years and directing the Respondent to correct the word "Renew" and "New" on the psara.gov.in portal in the light of continued validity of license issued on 20.04.2022 to 19.04 2027.

¶26

Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of equity, justice and circumstances of this case.

¶27

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner used to run private security services agency namely Balaji Security Services Private Limited. He was issued license by the respondent authorities to run private security agency from 20.04.2022 to 19.04.2023 vide Annexure-P/1. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted online application dated 03.03.2023 for renewal of his license, but the same has not been decided by the respondent authorities yet. It is further submitted that vide Annexure-P/1 license has been issued only for a period of 1 year, whereas as per sub-clause 5 of Section 7 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2005), such license is required to be issued for a period of 5 years and it can be further renewed for a further period of 5 years, therefore, it is prayed that the case be admitted for hearing and license validity period granted vide Annexure-P/1 be extended from 20.04.2022 to 19.04.2027 in accordance with the aforesaid Act and Rule 5 (10) of the Chhattisgarh Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2021

¶28

¶29

(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2021).

¶30

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that this petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the period of license granted to him vide license (Annexure-P/1), in which license period is mentioned as 20.04.2022 to 19.04.2023. It is further submitted that in instant petition, petitioner wants to extend the aforesaid period of license for 5 years, i.e. from 20.04.2022 to 19.04.2027, but since period of aforesaid license (Annexure-P/1) has already lapsed and petitioner has already applied for the renewal of the license, which is mentioned on the page No.29 of the instant petition, therefore, relief prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted in instant petition, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.

¶31

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the documents annexed with the present petition.

¶32

6. Sections 7 (5) and 8 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 reads as under:-

¶33

7. …….(5) A licence granted under this section -

¶34

(a) shall be valid for a period of five years unless the same is cancelled under subsection (1) of section 13;

¶35

(b) may be renewed from time to time after the expiry of five years for a further period of five years on payment of such fee as may be prescribed; and

¶36

(c) shall be subject to such conditions as may

¶37

¶38

be prescribed.

¶39

8. Renewal of licence – (1) an application for renewal of licence shall be made to the Controlling Authority, not less than forty-five days before the date of expiry of the period of validity thereof, in such form as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the requisite fee and other documents required under sections 6, 7 and 11 of this Act.

¶40

(2) The Controlling Authority shall pass an order on application for renewal of licence within thirty days from the date of receipt of application complete in all respects.

¶41

(3) On receipt of an application under subsection (1), the Controlling Authority may, after making such inquiries as he considers necessary and by order in writing, renew the licence or refuse to renew the same:

¶42

Provided that no order of refusal shall be made except after giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶43

7. Perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that license under the Act of 2005 shall be valid for a period of 5 years, unless the same is cancelled and it may be renewed for further 5 years subject to filing of renewal of license within stipulated period.

¶44

8. The case of petitioner is that the license period granted vide Annexure-P/1 for a period of 1 year is illegal, as it should have been granted for a period of 5 years as provided in Section 7 (5) of the Act, 2005. The document attached with the writ petition at page No.29 of the petition shows that petitioner has filed the application for renewal of his license on 03.03.2023, but the

¶45

¶46

same has not been decided by the respondent authorities.

¶47

9. Perusal of license (Annexure-P/1) shows that the license was granted only for a period of 1 year and it has expired on 19.04.2023 itself and instant petition has been filed after expiry of the aforesaid license period. If petitioner was aggrieved with the period of license (Annexure-P/1), then he should have filed the petition challenging the aforesaid limited period, but the same was not done by him till the existence of period of license. Thus, presently no license is in existence as of now and the same has already been lapsed, therefore, such lapsed license cannot be revived without following the procedure prescribed for renewal of license under the Act of 2005. As such the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted to him, therefore, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself.

¶48

10. However, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the online renewal application dated 03.03.2023 filed by the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law and rules governing the field, if the same has not been decided yet.

¶49

11. The writ petition stands dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶52

Deepti Jha

M/S Balaji Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Balaji Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India

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

Smt. Meera Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bheem Kumar Mehto Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Latif Ahmed Siddiqui Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Yadav @ Halka Yadav Vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar Jha

Lakshni Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Raj Kumari Vs State of Chhattisgarh