ALSECURE AND PROTECTION SERVICES Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of writ petitions mainly two reliefs are claimed. First relief that is claimed is that in view of the enactment and coming into force of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation), 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Central Act), which is the enactment enacted by the Parliament, Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act) does not operate in relation to the private security agencies. The second main prayer is that in case it is held that the State Act continues to operate in relation to the private security agencies, then the State Government should be directed to pass orders on the proposal pending before it under section 23 of the State Act for exemption from the provisions of the State Act immediately.

(2.) Writ Petition No. 1804 of 2007 has been filed by the Association of the Security agencies and also by 22 security agencies. According to averments in the petition the security agencies who are petitioners in this petition were carrying on business of security agencies even prior to the commencement of the State Act. According to averments in the petition, some of the petitioners-agencies were granted exemption from the provisions of the State Act by making an order under section 23 of the State Act. The petitioners have also made grievance about the State Government not renewing the exemption order in their favour within time. The above referred two principles reliefs are claimed in this petition.

(3.) Writ Petition 200 of 2008 is filed by a Bank, which has engaged security guards through respondents Nos. 7 & 8 security agencies. The respondent No. 7-security agency is the petitioner No. 8 in Writ Petition No. 1804 of 2007. It is claimed by the petitioner that respondents Nos. 7 & 8, security agencies, had in their favour an exemption order passed under the State Act in force when the Central Act came into force and therefore they are deemed to have licence under the Central Act till the application for licence under the Central Act is decided. The petitioner, therefore, in this petition is claiming the same reliefs which are referred to above.