Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sugriv Rambabu Singh Chauhan, proprietor of M/s. Shivam Enterprises Security Services, a private security agency registered under the Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and licensed under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (PSA Act), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders: (1) an order dated 21 September 2013 passed by Respondent No.5, the Controlling Authority and Inspector General of Police, cancelling the petitioner's license; and (2) an order dated 22 January 2014 passed by Respondent No.6, the Additional Chief Secretary, confirming the cancellation on appeal. The petitioner was granted a license on 6 July 2009 to carry on business as a private security agency. On 21 December 2012, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for violation of Section 13 of the PSA Act, alleging that two security guards employed by the petitioner had used licenses issued for personal security to secure jobs with the agency. The petitioner replied on 9 January 2013, denying the contents and stating that the petitioner was not aware of the violation and had employed them with bonafide beliefs, undertaking not to engage such armed guards in future. However, on 1 June 2013, the license was cancelled. On 12 August 2013, the order dated 1 June 2013 was set aside and the matter was remanded. Thereafter, on 21 September 2013, the Controlling Authority again cancelled the license. The petitioner appealed, but the appellate authority confirmed the cancellation on 22 January 2014. The court considered whether the cancellation was justified and proportionate. The court noted that the petitioner had admitted the violation in the reply to the show cause notice and that the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the licenses of the security guards. The court held that the cancellation of license was proportionate and that the appellate authority had correctly confirmed the order. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 - License Cancellation - Section 13 - Violation - Due Diligence - The petitioner, a private security agency, employed two security guards who used licenses issued for personal security to secure jobs with the agency, violating Section 13 of the PSA Act. The court held that the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the licenses and that the cancellation of license was proportionate. (Paras 2-6)
B) Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 - Appellate Authority - Confirmation of Cancellation - Section 14 - The appellate authority confirmed the cancellation order. The court found no infirmity in the appellate order as the petitioner had admitted the violation and the authority had considered the explanation. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of license under Section 13 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 was justified and proportionate.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The court upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's license and the confirmation by the appellate authority.
Law Points
- License cancellation under PSA Act
- 2005
- Section 13 violation
- due diligence
- proportionality of penalty
- appellate authority's confirmation
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (11) 97
WRIT PETITION NO. 4246 OF 2014 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2562 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4246 OF 2014
ANOOP V. MOHTA, MANISH PITALE
Mr. Joel J. Carlos a/w Yashwant Dhanegave for the Petitioner/Applicant; Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6
Sugriv Rambabu Singh Chauhan, Proprietor of M/s. Shivam Enterprises Security Services
The State of Maharashtra through the Public Prosecutor, High Court (A.S.), Bombay; The Home Secretary, Maharashtra State; Director General of Police, Maharashtra State; Principal Secretary (Home), Maharashtra State; The Controlling Authority & The Inspector General of Police, (Konkan Range); The Addl. Chief Secretary, (Appeal & Security), Maharashtra Government
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging cancellation of license of a private security agency.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 21 September 2013 cancelling the license and the order dated 22 January 2014 confirming the cancellation.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's license was cancelled for violation of Section 13 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, as two security guards had used licenses issued for personal security to secure jobs with the petitioner.
Previous Decisions
The license was initially cancelled on 1 June 2013, but that order was set aside on 12 August 2013 and the matter was remanded. Thereafter, on 21 September 2013, the Controlling Authority again cancelled the license. The appellate authority confirmed the cancellation on 22 January 2014.
Issues
Whether the cancellation of license under Section 13 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 was justified.
Whether the penalty of cancellation was proportionate to the violation.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the violation was not intentional and that the petitioner had employed the guards with bonafide beliefs and had undertaken not to engage such armed guards in future.
The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the licenses of the security guards, leading to violation of Section 13 of the PSA Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioner, as a licensed private security agency, was under a duty to exercise due diligence in verifying the licenses of security guards employed by it. The violation of Section 13 of the PSA Act, where guards used licenses issued for personal security to secure jobs with the agency, was a serious breach. The cancellation of license was proportionate to the violation, and the appellate authority had correctly confirmed the order.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner, a private security agency, registered under the Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 having license as contemplated under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act 2005, (the PSA Act) has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereby challenged impugned order dated 21 September 2013 passed by Respondent No.5 the Controlling Authority and the Inspector General of Police and order dated 22 January 2014 passed by Respondent No.6 the Additional Chief Secretary, whereby the license to run the Private Security Agency (Agency) was cancelled and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
On 6 July 2009, a license was granted to the Petitioner to carry on the business of the Private Security Agency. On 21 December 2012, a show cause issued to the Petitioner for violation of Section 13 of the PSA Act, as two security guards had used licenses issued for the personal security to secure the job with the Petitioner.
Procedural History
The petitioner was granted a license on 6 July 2009. On 21 December 2012, a show cause notice was issued for violation of Section 13 of the PSA Act. The petitioner replied on 9 January 2013. On 1 June 2013, the license was cancelled. On 12 August 2013, the order dated 1 June 2013 was set aside and the matter was remanded. On 21 September 2013, the Controlling Authority again cancelled the license. The petitioner appealed, and on 22 January 2014, the appellate authority confirmed the cancellation. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 14 March 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005: Section 13, Section 14
- Shops and Establishment Act, 1948:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
