WP-3749-2016

(MAHENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

04-01-2017

Shri Akhil Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Vandana Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the

respondents.

At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the

matter is heard finally.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition

challenging the orders dated 09/02/2015 and 17/12/2015

passed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1

respectively.

2. The petitioner is a proprietor of M/s Bhartiya Security

Guard Services presently named as M/s Mahendra, a

proprietorship firm engaged in the business of providing

private security services. The said firm has been

providing security services to the Maihar Cement

Factory since 1991. On 14/09/2010 a letter was sent by

the Sub Divisional Officer, Police, Maihar to Maihar

Cement Factory Management whereby it was informed

to the company that as per the Private Securities Act,

2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005'), it

becomes necessary to all the private security agencies to

get license from the controlling authority appointed by

the State Government. In pursuance of the direction

issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Police, Maihar,

Distt. Satna, the petitioner has submitted an application

before the controlling authority appointed by the State

Government for license vide his application dated

07/12/2010. As no action has been taken on the said

application submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner

again submitted a fresh application on 04/06/2010.

Thereafter the petitioner was asked to appear before the

Office of respondent No.2. The petitioner had appeared

and he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/-

which was deposited by the the petitioner. Thereafter a

letter dated 25/10/2014 has been issued by respondent

No.3 to respondent No.4 directing to take action against

the petitioner as the petitioner is running the private

security agency without any valid license. Thereafter

No.2 has passed an order dated 09/02/2015 contrary to

the provisions of the Act of 2005 directing respondent

No.3 to take action against the petitioner for violation of

Section 4 of the Act of 2005. Being aggrieved by the said

order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal dated

12/02/2015 along with an application for stay under

Section 14 of the Act of 2005. The said appeal is

dismissed by the respondent No.1 vide order dated

17/12/2015. Being aggrieved by the said order, the

petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the

orders dated 09/12/2015 and 17/12/2015 Annexure-P/10

and P/13 respectively are illegal and contrary. He

submits that both the authorities have erred in rejecting

the application on the ground that the same has not been

preferred within a period of one year from the date of

commencement of the Act of 2005. He further argues

that the provision of Section 4 of the Act of 2005 makes

it mandatory to all the private security agencies to take

valid license from the controlling authority appointed by

the State Government and also provides that those who

have been running the security agency before

commencement of the said Act, they should apply for

license and can continue their business till final disposal

of the matter by the controlling authority. He submits

that the petitioner has submitted an application for grant

of license under Section 4 of the Act of 2005 not only

once, but, three times, however, no action has been

taken by the respondents authorities. He further submits

that the appellate authority in most casual and arbitrary

manner has dismissed the said application. He further

contended that the Sub Divisional Officer, Police,

Maihar, for the first time in the year 2010 has informed

the management of the factory for asking the petitioner

to take license for security agency and immediately after

receiving the said