2025:BHC-AS:56348-DB

PRASHANT

VILAS RANE

PRASHANT VILAS

RAN E

Date: 2025.12.19 16:31:19 +0530

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6591 OF 2015

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi ...Petitioner

Versus

Pune District Security Guards Board & Ors. ...Respondents

_______

Ms. Ranjana Todankar for Petitioner.

Dr. Pallavi Divekar a/w Ms. Aishwarya Shetty for Respondent No.1.

Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for State.

_______

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 16 DECEMBER 2025

P.C.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed praying

for the following reliefs:

“(a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.2 to

engage the Security Guards through the Respondent No.1 Board only.

(b)This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to register the security guards listed at Exhibit ‘A’ to the Petition and to allot them to the

establishments of Respondent No.2;

(c)This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to initiate penal action against the Respondent No.2 as per the provisions of clause 42 of the Security

Guards Scheme, 2002;”

2. At the outset learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has raised an objection that although a writ of mandamus is prayed for, there is no representation or any

demand for justice is made by the petitioner to any of the authorities much less to respondent No.1, before seeking such reliefs. In such context, our attention is drawn to paragraph No.7 of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 of Shri. Prashant P. Vanjari, Secretary of Pune District Security Guards Board, Pune, wherein he has referred to the observations of this Court in Writ Petition No.2939 of 2016, which are required to be noted which read thus:

“7.I say that Writ Petition No.2939 of 2016 was filed in this Honourable Court by Pune District Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union for registration of the security guards involved in the said Petition. I say that the said Petition was disposed of by Order dated 08/02/2017. In para 5 and 6 of the said decision this Honourable Court has observed as follows:

5. “ …… We have been routinely observing that some entity styled as ‘Union presents applications purportedly on behalf of individuals, who are anxious to seek registration. Beyond dropping these applications in the Board’s office, no responsibility is assumed by such Unions. If there is no response from the Board, say for a month, or a fortnight or so, promptly such Unions file Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of mandamus and unmindful of the scheme of the law…”

6. “Thus, any applicant cannot, as of right, claim registration. The qualifications for new registration can be specified by the Board having regard to local conditions, physical fitness, capacity or experience. The applicant has to be a citizen of India. The Board has been conferred very wide powers in matters of registration. Therefore, we do not see how the petitioner Union and similarly applicants, who seek to press their cause through such Unions, rush to this Court and seek a writ of mandamus. Their right to seek registration is not absolute but conditioned by the requirements specified particularly in paragraph 14 of the Scheme. Therefore, once such application are made, merely because they are kept pending for months together, the applicants are rushing to this Court either by themselves or through Unions.”

3. We are in agreement with the learned Counsel Dr. Divekar.

4. From a perusal of the petition, it appears that the petition has been filed without making any application/representation seeking a demand for justice. In our opin