JUDGMENT - PALSHIKAR V.G., J.:---This petition is filed by Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi i.e. Union of Security Guards against the Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane District, established under the provisions of Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 and scheme framed thereunder.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged on behalf of its members the action of the respondent in not registering the members of the petitioner union as Security Guards. Rule was granted and a detailed reply has been filed by the concerned respondents.

3. Facts necessary for proper adjudication of this petition, stated briefly are that the members of the petitioner union were employed as Security Guards in certain establishment which enjoyed exemption under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from employing Security Guards only through the agency of the respondent No. 1 Board. This exemption after sometime was withdrawn by the Government of Maharashtra, as a result of which it became necessary for the establishment/employers to recruit security guards only via the Security Guards Board established under the Act.

4. The provisions of the Act also require registration of the establishment seeking employment as security guards with employers duly registered under the Act. It is therefore necessary for a security guard whether already in the employment or otherwise to seek registration under the provisions of the Act.

5. Taking into consideration the fact that the exemption, enjoyed by the employers of the members of the petitioner union was withdrawn, applications were sought from the Board for seeking registration of the members under the provisions of the Act. However for reasons not germane to the present petition, the request was rejected, which resulted in filing of certain writ petitions, as a consequence of which, directions were issued from time to time, directing the respondent No. 1 herein, to give application forms to the members of the petitioner union, take them duly filled, scrutinise and register them as per the provisions of the Act and the scheme thereunder.

6. On issuance of such mandamus, application forms were given to the members of petitioner union and they submitted them to the respondent No. 1 duly filled. Applications were scrutinised and the applicants were medically examined. Those who were found fit were registered and those were not so found were not registered. The refusal on the part of the Board to do so, is impugned in this petition and is sought to be quashed by appropriate writ, order or direction. The contention of the petitioner union is that in view of the past orders made by various courts and declarations made by respondent Board, the Board was found to register the member of the petitioner union, irrespective of their physical standard, because of the statement made before the Supreme Court of India on behalf of the Board at the time when the Security Guards Boards case was decided in 1987.

7. In reply the Board has defended this action and has contended that the Board has not acted in any manner illegal or improper. Applications of the petitioner union members were entertained, they were medically examined and those who were found not coming upto the standard required by the Board, were rejected. The Government Resolution dated 9th May, 2002 was pleaded in defence. By this resolution the Government directed the Board to do recruitment or registration of security guards by adhering to certain physical standard mentioned in that resolution.

8. As a consequence of this pleading the petitioner therefore impugned this resolution dated 9th May, 2002 as void being violative of the provisions of the scheme framed under the Act. The contention of the learned Counsel Shri K.K. Singhvi, is now appearing for the union of security guards, was that the supervisory po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document