1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.399 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.25 OF 2006 PETITION NO.25 OF 2006 PETITION NO.25 OF 2006 Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi .. .....Petitioner Vs. The Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay & Thane & Ors..Respondents R.R.Pandey & Ors. ..Petitioenrs Vs. B.M.C. & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.S.Mahedeshwar, for the Petitioner’ Mr. M.S. Topkar, for Respondent NO.1. Mr. V.P. Vaidya, for Respondent No.2. CORAM: F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: 1ST SEPTEMBER 2006 P.C. . By the present motion, the petitioners have moved this Court to be relieved of the statement made on their behalf on 21st March, 2006 as set out in paragraph 2 of the order on the ground that they want to directly recruit security guards of their own. 2 2. It is now pointed out that every employee should register under the scheme. Considering that the petitioner must apply for registration. 3. On the petitioners being registered with the Board and on the petitioner engaging directly security guards as its own employees the petitioner will be relieved from the statement as set out in para.2 of our order dated 21st March, 2006. Needless to say that on the petitioner appointing their own employees as security guards the petitioner will not be bound to comply with the direction set out in para.4 of the order dated 21st March, 2006. With the above direction Motion 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).