The Security Association Of India vs Union Of India Through The ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7132 Bom

     Shridhar Sutar                             1                          WP-7640-15.doc


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF  JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                            
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 7640 OF 2015




                                                    
     The Security Association of India                       ... Petitioner 




                                                   
              Versus

     Union of India and others                               ... Respondents 




                                        
                                     .....
     Mr. K. P. Anilkumar, Advocate for petitioner 
                             
     Mr. Sandesh Patil for respondent No.1
     Ms. S. S. Bhende, AGP for respondent No.2
     Mr. P. M. Palshikar for respondent No.3
                            
                                     .....


                                   CORAM:      DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. 
      


                                               AND M.S.SONAK, J.

                                   DATE    :   13 DECEMBER 2016
   



     P.C.:

1. The petitioner, which claims to be an association of security

agencies, seeks declaration that the following provisions are ultra

vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

(i) Section 13(1)(k) of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, (said Act).

(ii) Clauses 4(7) and 4(9) of the Private Security Agencies Central Model Rules, 2006.

                                                                                 1 of 28



      Shridhar Sutar                               2                           WP-7640-15.doc

(iii) Clause 4 of the Maharashtra Private Security Agencies

(Regulation) Rules, 2007 including in particular sub

clauses (1) and (7) thereof.

2. The Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 is the

Central legislation to provide for the regulation of private security

agencies and for matters connected therewith or incidental

thereto. Section 3 of the said Act requires the State Government,

by notification, to designate an officer not below the rank of a

Joint Secretary in the Home Department of the State or an

equivalent officer to be the controlling authority for the purposes

of the said Act. Section 4 of the said Act provides that no person

shall carry on or commence the business of private security

agency, unless he holds a licence issued under the said Act.

Section 6 prescribes the prerequisites a person must possess,

before, he is considered for issue of a licence under the said Act.

Section 7 prescribes the procedure to apply for licence under the

said Act. Section 8 is concerned with renewal of licence.

3. Section 9 of the said Act provides that every private security

agency shall, within six months of obtaining the licence,

2 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 3 WP-7640-15.doc

commence its activities. Such private security agency is also

required to ensure imparting of such training and skills to its

private security guards and supervisors as may be prescribed.

There is obligation to employ such number of supervisors as may

be prescribed. Section 10 of the said Act prescribes the

prerequisites in the matter of employment or engagement of

private security guards. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 bars the

employment or engagement of any person as a private security

guard or supervisor who has been convicted by a competent court

or who has been dismissed or removed on grounds of misconduct

or moral turpitude while serving in any of the armed forces of the

Union, State Police Organizations, Central or State Governments

or in any private security agency.

4. Section 11 of the said Act empowers the State Government

to frame rules to prescribe the conditions on which licence shall be

granted under the said Act and such conditions shall include

requirements as to the training which the licensee is to undergo,

details of the person or persons forming the agency, obligation as

to the information to be provided from time to time to the

Controlling Authority regarding any change of their address,

3 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 4 WP-7640-15.doc

change of management and also about any criminal charge made

against them in the course of their performance of duties of the

private security agency or as the case may be, a private security

guard employed or engaged by them. The State Government may

also make provision in the rules to verify about imparting of

required training by the private security agency and to review

continuation or otherwise of licence of such private security

agency which may not have adhered to the condition of ensuring

the required training.

5. Section 13 of the said Act empowers the Controlling

Authority to cancel any licence on one or more of the grounds

specifying sub-clauses (a) to (l). Since, the challenge in this

petition is to the provision contained in Section 13(1)(k), said

provision is transcribed below for convenience of reference.

"13.(1) The Controlling Authority may cancel any licence on

any one or more of the following grounds, namely :- ..........

..........

..........

(k) that there have been repeated instances when the private security guard or guards provided by the private security agency -

4 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 5 WP-7640-15.doc

(i) failed to provide private security or were guilty of gross negligence in not providing such security;

(ii) committed a breach of trust or misappropriated

the property or a part thereof which they were supposed to protect;

(iii) were found habitually drunk or indisciplined;

(iv) were found to be involved in committing crimes;

or

(v) had connived or abetted a crime against the person or property placed under their charge; or

..........

(2)Where the Controlling Authority, for reasons to be recorded

in writing, is satisfied that pending the question of cancelling of licence on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (l), it is necessary to do so, that Controlling Authority may, by order in writing, suspend the operation

of the licence for such period not exceeding thirty days as

may be specified in the order and require the licence holder to show cause, within fifteen days from the date of issue of such order, as to why the suspension of the licence should not be extended till the determination of the question of

cancellation.

(3)Every order of suspending or cancelling of a licence shall be in writing and shall specify the reasons for such suspension or cancellation and a copy thereof shall be

communicated to the person affected.

(4)No order of cancellation of licence under sub-section (l) shall be made unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard".

[Emphasis supplied].

                                                                                      5 of 28



      Shridhar Sutar                             6                           WP-7640-15.doc

6. Section 14 of the said Act provides that any person

aggrieved by an order of the Controlling Authority suspending or

canceling the licence under Section 13 of the said Act may prefer

an appeal to the Home Secretary of the State Government within

sixty days of the date of such order. The proviso empowers the

State Government to enlarge the time if sufficient cause is shown

for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period. The

State Government is obliged to afford the appellant reasonable

opportunity of being heard in the matter.

7. Section 24 of the said Act empowers the Central

Government to frame model rules in respect of all or any of the

matters with respect to which the State Government may make

rules under the said Act and where any such model rules have

been framed the State Government shall, while making any rules

in respect of that matter under section 25 of the said Act so far as

is practicable, conform to such model rules.

8. Section 25 of the said Act empowers the State Government

by notification, to make rules for carrying out the provisions of

this Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 25, in particular, and without

6 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 7 WP-7640-15.doc

prejudice to the generality of such power prescribes the matters,

which such rules may provide.

9. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 24 of the said

Act, the Central Government vide Notification S.O. No. 617 (E)

has made the Private Security Agencies Central Model Rules,

2006, which came into force from 26 th April, 2006. Amongst

other matters, Rule 4 of such model rules prescribes for the

verification of character and antecedents of the private security

guards and supervisors before they are employed or engaged by

any private security agency. Although, the challenge in this

petition is restricted to sub-rules (7) and (9), it will be appropriate

to transcribe the entire Rule 4 of the model rules for convenience

of reference.

"4. Verification of character and antecedents of the private security guard and supervisor;

(1) Before any person is employed or engaged as a security guard or supervisor, the Agency shall satisfy itself about the character and antecedents of such person in any one or more of the following manner:

(a) by verifying the character and antecedents of the person by itself;

7 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 8 WP-7640-15.doc

(b) by relying upon the character and antecedent verification certificate

produced by the person:

Provided that the character and antecedent certificate shall be valid and the Agency does not have any adverse report regarding the person's character and antecedents from any

other source; as prescribed hereinunder, produced by the person provided it is valid and the Agency does not have any adverse report regarding the person's character and

antecedents from any other source;

(c) by relying on the report received from the police authorities signed under the authority of the District Superintendent of

Police or an officer of the equivalent or higher rank.

(2) The person desirous of getting employed or engaged

as security guard or supervisor shall submit Form II to the Agency. If the person has stayed in more than

one District during the last five years, the number of forms will be as many as Districts.

(3) The Agency shall cause an inquiry into the

correctness of the particulars filled in either by itself or by sending the form to the respective District Superintendent of Police.

(4) The State Government may prescribe the form and the manner in which the fee is to be deposited for the service of character and antecedent verification by police.

(5) The police will establish identity of the individual and verify the character and antecedents of the person by making a visit to the locality where the person claims to have resided or residing and

8 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 9 WP-7640-15.doc

ascertain his identity and reputation from the respectable residents of the locality. They will also

consult the police station record of the concerned police station and other records at the District Police

Headquarter before preparing the character and antecedents verification report. This report will contain the comments of the police on every claim of the person in character and antecedents Form

and also a general report about his activities including means of livelihood in the period of verification. The police will specifically state if there is a criminal case registered against the person at

any point of time or if he has ever been convicted of criminal offence punishable with imprisonment.

(6) The police will specifically comment if the engaging or employing the person under verification by the

Private Security Agency will pose a threat to National Security.

(7) The police authorities shall ensure that

character and antecedent verification report is issued within ninety days of the receipt of the

character and antecedent form.

(8) The report of the police regarding character and antecedents of a person will be graded as

confidential. It will be addressed in named cover to a designated officer of the Security Agency requesting for character and antecedents.

(9) Character and antecedents verification report

once issued will remain valid for three years. (10) On the basis of police verification and on the basis of their own verification, the Agency shall issue in Form III a character certificate and this certificate will not be taken back by such Agency even if the person ceases to be the employee of that Agency".

[Emphasis supplied].

                                                                                        9 of 28



      Shridhar Sutar                             10                          WP-7640-15.doc




                                                                             

10. The State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by

section 25 of the said Act vide Notification No. PSA.1006/CR-

501/Special-4 dated 14th March, 2007 has made the Maharashtra

Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2007. Amongst

other matters, Rule 4 provides for verification of character and

antecedents of a person before he is employeed or engaged as a

security guard or a supervisor by private security agency.

Although, the prayer clause (a) of the petition refers to sub-rules

(1) and (7) from the averments in the petition, it appears that the

petitioner seeks to challenge sub-rules (1) and (9) of Rule 4. In

any case, for convenience of reference, entire Rule 4 is prescribed

below.

"4. Verification of character and antecedents of the private security guard and supervisor

(1)Before any person is employed or engaged as a security guard or supervisor, the Agency shall satisfy itself about the good character and antecedents of such person in any one or more of the following manner:-

(a) by verifying the character and antecedents of the person from the police authorities by itself;

10 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 11 WP-7640-15.doc

(b) by relying on the report received from the police authorities signed under the authority of the

District Superintendent of Police or Deputy Commissioner of Police in-charge of the Zone or

an officer of the equivalent or higher rank.

(2) The person desirous of getting employed or engaged as security guard or supervisor shall submit Form II to

the Agency. If the person has stayed in more than one District during the last five years, the number of forms will be as many as District.

(3) The Agency shall cause an inquiry into the correctness of the particulars filled in either by itself or by sending

the form to the respective District Superintendent of Police or Deputy Commissioner of Police in charge of the Zone.

(4) The State Government may specify by order, form the amount and the manner in which the fee is to be deposited for the service of character and antecedent

verification by police.

(5) The police will establish identity of the individual and verify the character and antecedent of the person by making a visit to the locality where the person claims

to have resided or residing and ascertain his identity and reputation from the respectable residents of the locality. They will also consult the police station record of the concerned police station and other records at the District Police Headquarters before

preparing the character and antecedents verification report. This report will contain the comments of the police on every claim of the person, in character and antecedent and also a general report about his activities, including means of livelihood in the period of verification. The police will specifically state if there is a criminal case registered against the person at any point of time or if he has ever been convicted of

11 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 12 WP-7640-15.doc

criminal offence punishable with imprisonment.

(6) The police shall specifically comment if the engaging or employing the person under verification by the

Agency poses a threat to national security.

(7) The police authorities shall ensure that character and antecedent verification report is issued within

ninety days of the receipt of the character and antecedent form.

(8) The report of the police regarding character and

antecedents of a person will be graded as confidential. It will be addressed in named cover to a designated

officer of the Agency, requesting for character and antecedents.

(9) Character and antecedents verification report once issued will remain valid for three years.

(10)On the basis of police verification and on the basis of

their own verification, the Agency shall issue in Form

III a character certificate and this certificate shall not be taken back by such Agency, even if the person ceases to be the employee of that Agency."

[Emphasis supplied].

11. Since, the petitioner also alleges that Rule 4 of the

Maharashtra Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2007

violates Section 24 of the said Act, the said section is transcribed

below for convenience of reference.

                                                                                     12 of 28



      Shridhar Sutar                                 13                          WP-7640-15.doc

"24. The Central Government may frame model rules in respect of all or any of the matters with respect to which the

State Government may make rules under this Act and where any such model rules have been framed the State Government

shall, while making any rules in respect of that matter under section 25, so far as is practicable, conform to such model rules".

12. Mr. K. P. Anilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the provisions in respect of which declarations of

unconstitutionality have been applied for are arbitrary and violate

Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In any case, learned

counsel submits that such provisions impose unreasonable

restrictions unprotected by Article 19(6) and therefore, such

provisions infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner

guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to

carry on occupation, trade or business.

13. Mr. Anilkumar submits the provision in Section 13(1)(k),

which entitles the controlling authority to cancel the licence of

private security agency, basically, for the faults on the part of the

security guards provided by the security agencies is patently

arbitrary. He submits that such a provision is akin to cancelling the

licence of a factory to operate for the fault of its employee or

agent. He submits that such a provision is extremely harsh and

13 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 14 WP-7640-15.doc

imposes a disproportionate burden upon the private security

agency. He submits that there are instances where licenses have

been cancelled even for a single default on the part of the security

guard, and such cancellation is invariably without even minimum

compliance with principles of natural justice. Mr. Anilkumar,

accordingly, submits that the provision in Section 13(1)(k) of the

said Act is liable to be declared as ultra vires articles 14 and 19 of

the Constitution of India.

14. By reference to the 2006 model rules framed by the Central

Government, and the 2007 rules framed by the State Government,

Mr. Anilkumar submits the requirement of securing verification of

character and antecedents of persons before they are employed or

engaged as security guards or supervisors by any private security

agency, is arbitrary and in the nature of an unreasonable

restriction, unprotected by Article 19(6) of the Constitution of

India. He submits that the security agencies, mostly engage ex-

servicemen or members or persons who have served in the Police

force or as Home Guards. To require the verification of character

and antecedents of such persons, which is quite a time consuming

process, is unnecessary and constitutes an unreasonable restriction

14 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 15 WP-7640-15.doc

upon the fundamental rights of the persons carrying on the

occupation or business as private security agencies. He submits

that in any case, once the character and antecedents verification

report is issued by the competent authority, there is no reason for

prescribing validity period of three years in respect of such report,

unless there is any material on record to suggest that some crime

is reported against some particular security guard during such

period of three years.

15. Learned counsel further submits that a time limit of ninety

days granted to the authorities to issue the character and

antecedent verification report is too long and the same ought to

be reduced to thirty days, if such provision is to be regarded as a

reasonable restriction. He further submits that it is necessary to

direct that in case, the police authorities fail to complete the

verification process within thirty days from the date of receipt of

application, then, such verification report should be deemed as

granted. This, he submits, is necessary in order to save the

provisions from the charge of unconstitutionality.

                                                                                   15 of 28



      Shridhar Sutar                               16                           WP-7640-15.doc

16. Learned counsel further submits that the condition in the

State rules to the effect that security guard should have minimum

five years stay in a particular place for seeking character and

antecedent certificate is also ultra vires the rights of the petitioner

and its members, apart from being ultra vires the provisions of the

said act, model rules and the State rules.

17. Mr. Sandesh Patil, who appears for the Union of India, Ms. S.

S. Bhende, learned AGP for the State of Maharashtra and Mr. P. M.

Palshikar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 have opposed the

submissions made by Mr. Anilkumar and submitted that the

impugned provisions are neither arbitrary nor do they impose any

unreasonable restrictions upon the petitioner or its members. They

submit that the petitioner, which, in all probabilities is an

unregistered association, can hardly be regarded as a citizen of

India, for it to claim any fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g)

of the Constitution of India. In any case, they submit that the

impugned provisions are regulatory in nature and the restrictions

imposed, are perfectly reasonable. They submit that the

restrictions are well protected under Article 19(6) of the

16 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 17 WP-7640-15.doc

Constitution of India. They submit that the petitioner has not

adverted any concrete instances of cancellation of licence or

unreasonable delays in the matter of issuance of character and

antecedent reports. In any case, they submit that individual

instances of dereliction are not grounds sufficient for striking

down the impugned legislative provisions and it is always open to

the persons aggrieved to challenge such instances before the

appropriate authority and in the appropriate manner. For all these

reasons, the learned counsel submit that the present petition be

dismissed with costs.

18. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

19. The relevant provisions of the said Act, the 2006 model rules

framed by the Central Government and the 2007 Rules framed by

the State Government have already been adverted to. As noted

earlier, the said act and the rules made thereunder seek to

regulate private security agencies and provide for matters

connected therewith or incidental thereto. There is no challenge

to the said Act or the rules made thereunder on the basis of

legislative competence.

                                                                                   17 of 28



      Shridhar Sutar                           18                           WP-7640-15.doc

20. The said Act provides for the designation of a controlling

authority in order to ensure due compliances to the provisions of

the said Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 13(1)

empowers such controlling authority to cancel the licences issued

to any private security agency, where, there have been repeated

instances when the private security guard or the guards provided

by the private security agency failed to provide private security or

were guilty of gross negligence in not providing security; or where

such security guards commit a breach of trust or misappropriate

the property or a part thereof which they were supposed to

protect; where they are found to be habitually drunk or

indisciplined; where they are found to be involved in committing

crimes; or have connived or abetted a crime against the person or

property placed under their charge.

21. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Anilkumar, that

the provision contained in Section 13(1)(k) is arbitrary, because,

the provision enables the controlling authority to cancel the

licence of security agency, even where a single incident of

misconduct by a security guard is noticed. Section 13(1)(k) itself

18 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 19 WP-7640-15.doc

provides that the power of cancellation can be exercised when

"repeated instances" as prescribed in sub-clauses (i) to (v) are

found to exist. The use of the expression "repeated instances", is

itself a safeguard provided to private security agencies and

therefore, it cannot be said the provision contained in Section

13(1)(k) is either arbitrary or that, the same imposes any

unreasonable restriction, which is alien to the purposes set out in

Section 19(6) of the Constitution of India.

22. In a situation, where the security guards provided by the

security agency, repeatedly fail to provide for security or are

grossly negligent in providing security or commit breach of trust

or misappropriation or are found to be habitually drunk or

indisciplined or are found involved in committing crimes or

connive or abet a crime against the person or property placed

under their charge, then, such security agency can be required to

assume the responsibility for the acts of such security guards

provided by them. There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in

making a provision of this nature taking into consideration the

nature of duties which security guards are required to discharge

and the standard of care which is expected of a private security

19 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 20 WP-7640-15.doc

agency, which provides for such security guards. Restriction, in the

present case, is undoubtedly reasonable and further, the same is in

the interest of the general public.

23. In order to determine the reasonableness of restriction, the

regard must be had to the nature of the business, which in the

present case, is providing of security guards, who are very often

left to guard the person and property of those who engage their

services. The reasonableness of restriction is to determined in an

objective manner and from the standpoint of the interests of the

general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of

person upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon

any abstract consideration.

24. Mr. Anilkumar's submission that licencee are cancelled by

the controlling authority even where a single instance of

misconduct on the part of the security guard is noticed or that the

cancellation of such licences is invariably without compliance with

principles of natural justice, deserves no acceptance. In the

petition, no specific instances of this nature have been cited. As

noted earlier, Section 13(3) of the said Act mandates the record of

20 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 21 WP-7640-15.doc

reasons by the controlling authority for either suspension or

cancellation of a licence. Section 13(4) of the said Act, in terms

provides that the order of cancellation has to be preceded by

afford of reasonable opportunity of being heard. This means that

the principles of natural justice and fair plea have been statutorily

structured in section 13 of the said Act. Restriction cannot be held

to be unreasonable, merely because in a given case it may operate

harshly. Further in determining whether a restriction is

unreasonable, the nature of the right alleged to have been

infringed, underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the

proportionality of the restriction are some of the aspects which

have to be taken into consideration. The circumstances like

provision of appeal or the requirement to comply with principles

of natural justice before adverse action is initiated, are also

matters relevant for determining the reasonability of the provision

concerned. Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs.

The Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad and others AIR

- 1960 S.C.(801) and Union of India and another Vs.

International Trading Co. and another - 2003 (5) SCC 437.

                                                                                   21 of 28



      Shridhar Sutar                            22                           WP-7640-15.doc

25. In the present case, apart from the reference to "repeated

instances", in section 13(1)(k), section 13(3) of the said Act

requires the controlling authority to make an order or suspension

or cancellation of licence in writing and specify the reasons

therefore. Such order is required to be communicated to the

person affected. Section 13(4) provides that no order of

cancellation of licence under sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall be

made unless the person has been given reasonable opportunity of

being heard. Section 14 provides for appeal to the Home Secretary

against the order of cancellation. Sub-section 3 of Section 14

again in terms provides that before disposing of appeal the State

Government shall give the appellant reasonable opportunity of

being heard.

26. There are no individual instances cited by the petitioner to

demonstrate that the provision impugned, operates harshly. In any

case, individual instances of such nature, if any, can always be

corrected in appeal. Such individual instances, if any, are by no

means sufficient grounds to declare the provisions of Section

13(1)(k) of the said Act as unconstitutional or ultra vires. The

appellate authority is also required to afford opportunity of

22 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 23 WP-7640-15.doc

hearing before disposal of appeal against the cancellation. All

these factors are relevant to hold that the provision contained in

Section 13(1)(k) of the said Act is quite reasonable and there is no

merit in the contention that such provision violates Article 14 or

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

27. Insofar as the challenge to Rule 4 of the Central Model Rules

or the State Rules is concerned, we note that such rules require

the security agency to obtain certificate of verification of character

and antecedents of the person whom they propose to employ as

security guards or supervisors. The circumstance that some of the

members of the petitioner association employ or engage only ex-

servicemen or persons earlier employed in the police force, is

quite besides the point. If the provisions of the said Act are

perused in their entirety, it is seen that there is no bar upon

security agencie's employing or engaging persons other than

ex-servicemen or ex-employees of police force, as long as such

persons fulfill the requirements set out in Section 10 of the said

Act or such other requirements as may be prescribed. The rules,

which mandate the obtaining of certificate of verification of

character and antecedents, applies uniformly to all private security

23 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 24 WP-7640-15.doc

agencies and there is really nothing arbitrary or unreasonable with

regard to such a requirement. In fact, we are of the opinion that

such a provision is undoubtedly in the interest of the members of

the general public and to some extent, also in the interest of

private security agencies themselves.

28. The private security agencies who engage only

ex-servicemen or persons who have served in the police force or in

the home guards as security guards or supervisors, will

presumably have no serious difficulties in obtaining character and

antecedents certificates. However, it must be noted that there can

be no universal presumptions in this regard since, it cannot be

said with certainty that such ex-servicemen or ex-employees of the

police force or home guards will invariably have good character or

antecedents, so as to render verification futile or unnecessary.

29. The submissions that, period of ninety days specified in Sub-

Rule 7 of Rule 4 in the matter of issuance of character and

antecedent verification report ought to be reduced to thirty days

or that a provision should be made for grant of deemed

verification report, are quite misconceived. It is not within the

24 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 25 WP-7640-15.doc

province of this court in the exercise of its power of judicial review

to rewrite a statute. As long as the statute as it stands, is not in

violation of part III of the Constitution or otherwise beyond the

legislative competence, there is no question of striking down such

statute, on the basis of any hypothetical and unsubstantiated

apprehensions expressed by the petitioner.

30. There is a presumption of constitutionality and matters such

as prescription of qualification of safeguards are basically matters

of legislative policy, which cannot be interfered with in the

exercise of powers of judicial review, unless, it is established that

same are arbitrary or unreasonable. The same applies to the

prescription of time schedules within which applications seeking

character and antecedent verification reports must be disposed of.

In exercise of powers of judicial review, it is not within the

province of this court to either rewrite the statute or to create any

legislative fiction, by way of deemed permission, where there is

failure to dispose of the application within the prescribed period.

Accordingly, we find no merit in the challenge to the rules.

                                                                                   25 of 28



      Shridhar Sutar                            26                          WP-7640-15.doc

31. There is no inconsistency between 2006 Model Rules and

the 2007 State Rules if the provisions containing Rule 4 of the

either rules are perused and analysed. Besides, Section 24 merely

prescribes the State Government, while making any rules under

section 25 shall, so far as is practicable, confirm to such model rules

made by the Central Government under section 24 of the said Act.

Accordingly, there is no merit in the challenge to the State Rules

on the ground that they violate Section 24 of the said Act.

32. In the case of Messrs Tradesvel Security Services Pvt. Ltd.

Vs. State of Maharashtra - 1982 (84) Bombay Law Reporter -

608, the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Private

Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act,

1981 and the Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment

and Welfare) Scheme, 1981 was upheld by this court. The

challenges based upon violation of Article 14 and 19 of the

Constitution of India were specifically repealed.

33. In the case of Security Association of India and another

Vs. Union of India and others - (2014) 12 Supreme Court

Cases - 65 the Supreme Court has specifically affirmed the

26 of 28

Shridhar Sutar 27 WP-7640-15.doc

decision of this court in the case of Tradesvel (Supra). Further, in

the said case, the Supreme Court has also rejected the contention

that the provisions of the State Act are repugnant to the provisions

of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (Central

Act). In the context of the provisions of the State Act, the Supreme

Court, after making specific reference to the provisions contained

in Section 13 of the Central Act, has rejected the challenge to the

State Act as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the

Constitution. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that the

restrictions imposed are reasonable restrictions envisioned by the

Constitution and that they protect the rights and ensure the

welfare of the private security guards engaged by private security

agencie.

34. As regards the challenge to the provision of minimum five

years stay in a particular place for the purposes of seeking

character or antecedent certificate, we propose not to examine

such challenge in the present petition at the behest of the

petitioner. In the first place, we have not been shown such specific

provision either under the act or under the rules. Secondly, there

is not even a single instance cited by the petitioner in this regard.

                                                                                 27 of 28



      Shridhar Sutar                             28                          WP-7640-15.doc

Thirdly, such a contention, can be better examined at the instance

of a person aggrieved by the operation of such a rule or

requirement, if any. For all these reasons and in the absence of any

particulars or proper pleadings we do not propose to examine this

particular issue.

35. For all the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this petition. There

shall be no order for costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

28 of 28