1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.4577 of 2009 M/s.Mahindra Lifespace Developers Limited .. Petitioner v/s. Mr.S.A. Chowdhary & anr. .. Respondents Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Sr.Advocatre wsith Mr.Ankit Lohia, Mr.Shailesh Shukla and Mr.Jaitra Jain i/by M/s.AZB & Partners for Petitioner. Mr.R.M. Kadam, Advocate General and Mr.V.R.Dhond with Mr.S.K. Chari i/by M/s.M.V. Kini & Co. for Res.Nos.1 & 2. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 23rd February, 2010 P.C. : 1.Rule, returnable forthwith. 2.This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of Respondent No.1, who was the Inquiry Officer and conducted an inquiry for unauthorised use of electricity upon a Show Cause Notice having been issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was to show cause as to why the amount demanded in the Notice should not be paid. 2 3.The Petitioner alleges that the right of natural justice was not followed at the hearing conducted by Respondent No.1 on behalf of Respondent No.2 and hence the Writ Court must intervene and set aside the order. 4.To show the absence of the right of natural justice, the Petitioner has set out two facts. One is that the person, who was responsible for bringing to light the unauthorised use of electricity and was the Investigating Officer, was present at the hearing and took an active part in it by asking several questions to the Advocate of the Petitioner. The hearing has not shown any other Presenting Officer. The Investigating Officer, who was the Deputy Director (Vigilance) of Respondent No.2, was the officer who had investigated the case. He, therefore, took an active part in the hearing. That itself is not the breach of the principles of natural justice. 5.The other contention is that Respondent No.1 was a subordinate officer to the said Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is the Deputy Director (Vigilance). Respondent No.1 is the Superintendenting Engineer. He is stated to be superior in rank as well as scale to the Deputy Director (Vigilance) who investigated the case. 3 6.The Petitioner also contends that the Managing Director of Respondent No.2 had publicly facilitated the Investigating Officer prior to the hearing and hence Respondent No.1 could not have heard the case. This argument also is unacceptable because if that is so, no officer of Respondent No.2 can hear the Petitioner s case. 7.The learned Advocate General on behalf of the Respondents states that before any disconnection is made pursuant to the order of Respondent No.1, notice of 2 weeks shall be given to the Petitioner as per Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 8.In the circumstances aforesaid, there is absolutely nothing to show the breach of natural justice. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. 9.No order as to costs. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)