[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION W.P.NO.652 OF 2008 Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi ..Petitioner Vs. Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane Districts and two Ors. ..Respondents .... Ms.Ranjana Todankar Advocate for the Petitioner Ms.Lata Desai Adv. i/b Pallavi Divekar for Respondent No.1 Mr.B.K.Ashok Adv. i/b Bekay Legal for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. .... CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 03, 2009 DATE : FEBRUARY 03, 2009 DATE : FEBRUARY 03, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The learned counsel appearing for the Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane Districts states that the persons who are working as Security Guards and are not registered, may make a fresh application to the Board after the Notification is published. [-2-] 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Board states that the Notification by way of advertisement would be published in due course of time i.e. within four to six weeks. If that is so, we need not entertain the petition, as the petitioner Union, if it is registered and recognised, may represent the cause of its members and apply to the Board and can get them registered. With this observation, petition stands disposed of. [J.N.PATEL, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]