Name of the case: - security guard v.

security of personnel suites

Citation: - 1987 SCR (3) 19
Legislative provisions: - Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation ofEmployment and
Welfare) Act, 1981: s. 23 read with ss. 22and 1(4)--Exemption from Act--Denial of to security
agenciesor agents--Validity of-Government whether required to statereasons.Administrative Law:
Exemptionfrom provisions ofa statute--Refusalof--Government whether to state reasons.

Facts: - The pertioners applications for exemption from the provisions of the Act like Section 1(4)
of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards(Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, section
2(10), section 3, section 22, section 23. having been rejected by the State Government they filed
writ petitions before the High Court which were dismissed by a Single Judge. On appeal, the
Division Bench took the view that the applications had been rejected as a result of the policy
decision not to grant exemption to any security agency and that this was wrong, that each
application for exemption had to be considered on its own merits and so disposed of, and
consequently directed the Government to consider the applications afresh. And the decision of
division bench was appeal to supreme court by Security & Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. Etc.

HELD: - The orders of the State Government refusing to grant exemption to the respondents from
the operation or' the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of
Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 do not call or any interference.

Cited by: -
Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
Radha Kant Yadav vs State Of Bihar And Ors.

Name of the case: - B. T. Nayak S/o T. S. Nayak and others v Union of India and others
Writ petition no: - 13385-13401 of 2010(GM-RES)
Legislative provisions: - private security and regulation act section 25
Brief facts: - 1. The petitioners are independent Contract Agencies engaged in providing security
personnel services for attending to the watch and ward duties at various industrial and commercial
establishments. The petitioners are before this Court challenging the notices issued by the
Controlling Authority and Deputy Inspector General of Police (Internal Security Division), calling
upon the petitioners to obtain licences under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005
and the Karnataka Private Security Agencies Rules, 2008. The petitioners have also called in
question, the vires of the rules framed by the Government of Karnataka in exercise of the power
conferred by the sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act,
2005. The main contention of the petitioners is that the impugned draft rules were required to be
published and objections were required to be called for from the general public before bringing the
Rules into force.
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record an affidavit of the Additional
Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department which is dated 27.09.2018. The Additional
Chief Secretary has admitted to the position that the draft rules were not published and objections
were not called for, before bringing the Rules into force. In the affidavit, the Additional Chief
Secretary has also sought liberty to the State Government to publish the draft rules calling upon
the general public to file their objections and thereafter, re-enact the rules in accordance with law.

3. In view of the unconditional affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government
of Karnataka, the impugned notices are hereby quashed and set aside. All similar notices that were
issued by the Controlling Authority as is produced at Annexure-C, be and are hereby quashed and
set aside. Liberty is granted to the State Government to redo the process of framing the rules in
accordance with law. The petitions are accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs.

Held: - In view of the disposal of the matter, interlocutory applications do not survive for
consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of
Cited cases: - Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
Name of the case: - krantikari suraksha rakshak v. bharat sanchar nigam ltd

Citation: - SLP (C) No.13553/2007.

Legal provisions: - Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and

Welfare) Act, 1981
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,1970

Brief facts: - petitioners field writ petition before high court the principal contention of the
petitioners was once Security Guard Board constituted under the Maharashtra Private Security
Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 (in short the `Act') allots guards
to a principal employer, it looses the power to recall, re-allot or transfer such guard as the guard
so allotted becomes an employee of the principal employer. By the impugned judgment the
High Court held that the main contentions advanced by the Unions were covered by a series
of judgments of earlier Division Benches as well as of learned Single Judges of the High Court
which were binding upon it. Nevertheless, the Division Bench also examined the acceptability
of contentions advanced and ultimately held that the contentions were without substance. And
then appeal to supreme court.
HELD: - supreme court Looked at from any angle, the appeals are without merit, deserve
dismissal which we direct. No costs.
CITED BY: - Mohan Sampatrao Torsale vs The Railway Goods Clearing & on 14 July, 2009