IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2005 1. Santosh Satya Vijay Gosavi & 7 ors. ] .. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Maharashtra & 3 ors. ] .. Respondents Ms. Ranjana Todankar for the petitioners. Mr. P.M. Mokashi, AGP, for the respondent No.1. Ms. L.S. Desai i/b M/s. Pallavi Divekar for the respondent No.2. Mr. Neel Helekar i/b M/s. Haresh Mehta & Co. for the respondent No.3. Mr. B.K. Ashok for the respondent No.4. CORAM: R.M. LODHA, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: 16TH JANUARY, 2007 P.C. : . Mr. P.M. Mokashi, the Assistant Government Pleader submits that in this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 15th July, 2003 issued by the State of Maharashtra under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981. The Assistant Government Pleader submits that the said : 2 : Notification had a life of three years and the said period having expired, the challenge to the said Notification has become infructuous. Though Ms. Ranjana Todankar, the counsel for the petitioners prays for time on the ground that Mr. Susheel Mahadeshwar who is to argue the Writ Petition on behalf of the petitioners is out of station and not available, in our view, the submission of the Assistant Government Pleader is justified that the Notification dated 15th July, 2003 was to remain operative for a period of three years from the date of publication of the Notification. The Notification was published on 15th July, 2003 itself. Thus, at the end of the day of 14th July, 2006, the life of the Notification came to an end. In this view of the matter, the challenge to the said Notification is not required to be gone into and to that extent, nothing needs to be decided in the Writ Petition. 2. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners submits that the applications have been made by the petitioners to the respondent No.2 - Board for their registration. 3. The counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that pending applications made by the petitioners for their registration with the Board shall be disposed of : 3 : within four weeks from today and if the said applications are found in order, the petitioners shall be registered. She further submits that those who have not made applications so far and make applications now, such applications shall be considered by the Board within four weeks from the date of receipt thereof. We record and accept the statement of the counsel for the respondent No.2. 4. No further order needs to be passed in the Writ Petition. It stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- [R.M. LODHA, J.] [R.M. LODHA, J.] [R.M. LODHA, J.] Sd/- [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.]