Nav Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak And General Kamgar Sanghtana v. Sangli District Security Guards Board And ORS.
ssm 1 910wp5112.16.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5112 OF 2016 Nav Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Sanghtana ....Petitioner.
Vs.
Sangli District Security Guards Board & Ors.
....Respondents.
Ms. Ranjana Todankar for the Petitioner.
Ms. Pavitra Manesh I/by Meelan Topkar for Respondent No.1. Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Ramesh Chaulkar for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : 29 APRIL 2016.
ORDER: We are inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition at this stage itself as Respondent No.3 by communication dated 28 April 2016 to their advocate, intimated as under: "As we have placed Advertisement for Empanelment for various services for Satara DO for the year 2016
19. & as we are going to prepare the list of Empanelment for various services, we are ready to exclude the empanelment list for security services. This is for your information."
1/2
ssm 2 910wp5112.16.sxw The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 states that, in view of the above, security services would not now form part of the recruitment. The statement is accepted.
So far as the prayer clause in the Petition directing Respondent No.1 to register Respondent No.3 as per the provisions of clause 13 of the Security Guards Scheme, 2002 and to allot them to Respondent No.3 establishment is concerned, the Petitioners have already made representation to Respondent No.1 and the same is pending. Therefore, we are inclined to direct Respondent No.1 to take decision on the representation so made, as early as possible, preferably within four weeks from today, after giving hearing to Respondent No.3 establishment also. Respondent No.3 to cooperate. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of, with liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) 2/2