G4s Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Signatory v. State Of Maharashtra Thr The Office Of The Government Pleader And ANR

Urmila Ingale 55-wp-4748-22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date:

2023.03.10 11:25:16 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 4748 OF 2022 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.

..Petitioner VS.

1. State of Maharashtra

2. Security Guard Board Greater Mumbai and Thane District ..Respondents Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Mr. Digajmaan G. Mishra i/b Yashmaan Mishra, Anil Tiwari, Aayushya Aankul, Shweta Bharti, Shantanu Malik, Akshata Sharma, Jaskaran Narula, Mangesh Bhende, Khushboo Dilloud, Sunita Vishwakarma, Suraj Vishwakarma and Saraswati Shivhare from Hammurabi & Solomon Partners, Mumbai, for the Petitioner. Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for State - Respondent No.1. Mr. Amardev J. Uniyal, for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : MARCH 8, 2023 P.C. :

1.

The petitioner seeks direction restraining the respondent-Board from writing any letters to any of the petitioner's clients and/or its business partners/associates/ affiliates without following the due process of law qua the petitioner company.

2.

It is the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned 1/2

Urmila Ingale 55-wp-4748-22.odt counsel for the respondent are ad idem that subsequent to the filing of the petition, no dispute survives about the payment of levy and surcharge as claimed in the petition. 3.

The only anxiety of the petitioner it appears is that the letters are written by the respondent-Board to the principal employer viz. clients of the petitioner for payment of 10% surcharge and 3% levy.

4.

The respondent-Board can certainly resort to the provisions of the Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Scheme, 2002 (for short, "the Scheme, 2002") in a manner as laid down under the same. 5.

The respondent-Board may not directly claim the amount of levy and surcharge from the principal employer of the petitioner without ascertaining and adhering to the procedure as contemplated under the Scheme, 2002. 6.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 2/2