JUDGMENT : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Heard Shri H. V. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. R. Kulkarni, learned A.G.P. for respondents. 2. Shri Thakur, learned counsel contends that petitioner, a Club, infact an association of individuals has been complying with the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and accordingly, the contract labours were being provided till issuance of the impugned notification dated 9-3-2004. Thereafter, in present petition on 28-10-2004, while admitting the challenge, this Court granted interim relief and therefore, that system is still continued. 3. By placing reliance upon Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at AIR 2001 SC 3527 , Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others, he submits that the violation of Act also does not result in automatic regularization of labour employed through contract. 4. Without any apparent reason and application of mind, on 9-3-2004, the impugned notification has been issued under section 10(1) of the above mentioned 1970 Act, and employment of contract labours in khanpan services and security services has been prohibited. He contends that there is no application of mind by the State Government (Appropriate Government) to the facts at hand and even the respondent No. 2 Board, has not evaluated the relevant factors. There is no complaint of violation of terms and conditions of licence. He has invited our attention to orders passed by this Court on 9-12-2004, and submitted that though respondents were directed to produce relevant material, which may have been looked into by them, such material has not been produced till date. There is no reference to any such material even in the reply affidavit. Mere insistence on grant of permanency to contract labour or alleged refusal by petitioner, cannot be such material. 5. Learned A.G.P. is relying upon the reply-affidavit. She submits that respondent No. 2 Board gave petitioner necessary opportunity to regularize the contract labour and when petitioners failed to do so, the impugned notification has been issued. 6. In brief reply, Shri Thakur, learned counsel points out that in identical association/Club in city and elsewhere, there is no such prohibition and if arguments of learned A.G.P. are accepted, it results in hostile discrimination. 7. 6. In brief reply, Shri Thakur, learned counsel points out that in identical association/Club in city and elsewhere, there is no such prohibition and if arguments of learned A.G.P. are accepted, it results in hostile discrimination. 7. Perusal of Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned supra, clearly shows that merely because employer violates provision of 1970 Act, there cannot be automatic regularization or grant of permanency. The employment of contract labour can be prohibited in specified circumstances. The circumstances or grounds do not figure either in the impugned notification or then in the return filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In impugned notification, language in section 10 has been used to support this satisfaction. How alleged denial by petitioner itself tantamount to fulfillment of contingencies envisaged in section 10(5), is therefore, not apparent. If such refusal is to be utilized for issuing such notification, then as no employer would be ready and willing to regularize and grant permanency to such contract labour, respondent would be required to issue such notification in cases of all employers/establishments. The impugned notification therefore, shows non application of mind. 8. This Court has granted interim order and therefore, the impugned notification dated 9-3-2004 could not operate. It is a matter of record that thereafter, employment of security guards is regulated by an independent legislation in State of Maharashtra namely Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 and the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. Provisions of these enactments therefore need to be examined by respondents if any fresh decision is to be taken. Not only this, if such action is taken only against the petitioner Club, and therefore, it was singled out, permission to continue contract labour in same services elsewhere, may also be one of the important considerations. 9. As the impugned notification dated 9-3-2004, suffers from non application of mind, we quash and set it aside. However, respondents are free to take fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. 10. Writ Petition is thus, partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.