Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Advocates
  • MR VM DHOTRE(1089)
  • PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Shastri
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Advocates
  • MR VM DHOTRE(1089)
  • PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Shastri
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the Police Inspector (respondent no. 3) to carry out character and antecedents verification required for obtaining a new or renewed licence under the Private Security Agency (Regulation) Act, 2005. The petitioner also sought a direction for the respondent to decide the representation dated 09.07.2020, which was pending consideration.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Police Inspector is obliged to carry out the character and antecedents verification of the petitioner as required under the Private Security Agency (Regulation) Act, 2005.
  2. Whether the pending application dated 09.07.2020 submitted by the petitioner must be examined and decided by the respondent no. 3 within a reasonable time frame.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

  • The petitioner submitted a specific written application dated 09.07.2020 to the Police Inspector, which had not been examined or decided upon.
  • The petitioner requested the Court to direct the respondent no. 3 to consider and decide the pending application at the earliest.
  • The petitioner did not seek examination of the merits of the application at this stage, only a direction for its consideration and decision.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State had no objection to the direction that the pending application be examined and decided.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the petitioner’s application dated 09.07.2020 had not been decided by the Police Inspector despite being submitted. Since the petitioner did not seek a decision on the merits of the application at this stage, the Court directed the respondent no. 3 to examine and decide the application strictly in accordance with law within ten days from the date of receipt of the writ of the order. The Court emphasized that the authority retains full discretion to decide the application on its merits independently.

Holding and Implications

The petition is DISPOSED OF with the direction that respondent no. 3 shall consider and decide the pending application dated 09.07.2020 within ten days of receiving the writ of the order, and communicate the decision to the petitioner forthwith. The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the application, leaving the authority free to make an independent decision in accordance with law. No new precedent was established; the order directs timely administrative action on a pending representation.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    SAMEER KUMAR S/O SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

    R/SCR.A/3446/2020 ORDER

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3446 of 2020

    ========================================================= SAMEER KUMAR S/O SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA

    Versus

    STATE OF GUJARAT

    ========================================================= Appearance:

    MR VM DHOTRE(1089) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. MAYUR V DHOTARE(7019) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3

    MR JK SHAH ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

    =========================================================

    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

    Date : 19/08/2020

    ORAL ORDER

    1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking the following reliefs :-

    "7.A To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no. 3 - Police Inspector to carry out the character and antecedents verification of the petitioner which is required for the purposes of getting new and renewed licence under the Private Security Agency (Regulation) Act, 2005 for conducting security services of business in various states and Union Territories as stated in this petition by strictly considering the provisions of Section 6 of the Private Security Agency (Regulation) Act, 2005 in the interest of justice.

    B. Pending, admission, final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation dated 09.07.2020 at Annexure-E to the petition in the interest of justice.

    Page 1 of 3

    C. To provide for the cost of this petition. D. To pass any other and further order/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

    2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, at the outset Mr. Dhotre, learned advocate for the petitioner, without entering into the merit has requested the Court that a specific written application was given on 09.07.2020 to the Police Inspector, In-charge of Pandesra Police Station, Surat City which is reflecting on page 30, but according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, so far, nothing has been examined with respect to this grievance. As a result of this, has requested the Court to issue appropriate direction to examine the said pending application and decide the same at the earliest.

    3. To this submission, Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State has no objection.

    4. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions :-

    4.1. Respondent no. 3 - authority is directed to look into the application dated 09.07.2020 reflecting on page 30 and which so far not decided, the same shall be examined and decided in accordance with law,

    Page 2 of 3

    within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of writ of this order and the decision upon it, may be communicated forthwith to the petitioner.

    4.2. It is made clear that since the merit is not requested to be examined, it is independently left it open for the authority to take appropriate decision, in accordance with law upon the aforesaid application.

    5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present petition stands disposed of.

    (ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)

    NAIR SMITA V.

    Page 3 of 3

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    SAMEER KUMAR S/O SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF GUJARAT
    (Aug 19, 2020)