1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1206 OF PETITION NO.1206 OF PETITION NO.1206 OF 2006 Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi.Petitioner Vs. The Security Guards Board of Greater Bombay & Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Susheel Mahadeshwar, for the petitioner Ms. Lata Desai i/b. Pallavi Divekar for respondent No.1. Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Counsel with Mr. Kiran Bapat i/b. J.K. Desai for respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: DATE: DATE: 13TH NOVEMBER,2006 13TH NOVEMBER,2006 13TH NOVEMBER,2006 P.C. . Respondent No.2 has filed reply and have contended that by letter dated 15th January, 2006 the respondent No.3 was informed that their services are no longer required. It is further averred by the respondent No.2 that they are employing their own personnel in service. 2. On behalf of petitioner learned Counsel states that the respondent No.2 has engaged guards from another agency. That is not the cause of action so far as this petition is concerned. The petitioners, if they have any remedy it will be open 2 to them to take steps in so far as the new contract which they alleged have been entered into. 3. In so far as the present petition is concerned, the only relief which we can consider is to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the application pending before it for registration dated 17th February, 2006 and to decide the same according to law at any rate not later than eight weeks from today. With the above observation petition stands disposed of. (F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) (ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA J). V. MOHTA J). V. MOHTA J).