1 MGJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Ld) No.1139 of 2010 Renuka Sanket Shah ..Petitioner vs. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking and others ..Respondents Writ Petition (Ld) No.1204 of 2010 1 Nikhil Gehrotra and others ..Petitioners vs. 1 Bombay Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking and others ..Respondents Mr.Shyam Diwan, Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.Ashok Purohit for petitioner in W.P.Ld.No.1139 of 2010 Mr.T.N.Subramaniam, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ashish Kamath i/b Thakore Jariwala and Associates for petitioners in W.P.Ld.No.1204 of 2010 Mr.D. J.Khambata, Additional Solicitor General with Mr.H.Toor, Mr.S.K.Chari and Mr.D.Das i/b M.V.Kini and Co. for respondent no.1 Mr. D.J.Khambata, Addl. Solicitor General with Mr.G.S.Kulkarni and Mr.N.R.Prajapati i/b T.C.Kaushik for Union of India Mr.R.M.Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.G.D.Uttangale i/b Uttangale and Co. for respondent/SRA Mr.Milind More, A.G.P. for respondent State Ms.V.S.Gharpure for respondent Corporation Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Shavan Jagtiani i/b Mr.H.S.Venegaokar for respondent no.4 2 CORAM : J.N.PATEL, ACTING C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 18th June 20100 P.C. 1 These two petitions came to be filed by the occupants of the building known as “Har Siddhi Heights” situated at Khan Abdul Gafar Khan Road, Worli Seaface, Worli, Mumbai being aggrieved by the action of the respondent BEST in disconnecting the supply of electricity to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that they are enjoying the electricity connection and have been regularly paying the electricity bills for the usage of the electricity but suddenly without giving them notice the respondent BEST has discontinued their supply of electricity. This action on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and high handed which deserves to be quashed and set aside and they should be directed to restore the electricity supply and restrained and injuncted them from disconnecting the same to the buildings in question without following due process of law. 2 Admittedly, the supply of electricity came to be discontinued by the respondent BEST without issuing any show cause notice or giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners . During the pendency of the petitions for admission electricity connection was restored by BEST. 3 We are now informed that respondent BEST has issued the show cause notice to the petitioners and, therefore, it is submitted that the petitions should respond to the show cause notice and file the reply within a period of two weeks from today and that the respondent BEST should be directed to 3 take decision in the matter by passing a speaking order after giving fair opportunity to the petitioners and in case the respondent BEST passes an adverse order it should not be implemented atleast for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order to the petitioner. 4 Mr.Khambata, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the petitions can be disposed of in the aforesaid terms. We, therefore, dispose of these two petitions with a direction to respondent no.1 to take a decision in the matter after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/noticees . In case the respondents decide to discontinue the electricity supply to the flats of the petitioners they shall refrain from implementing the said order for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order to the petitioners. Till then, the electricity supply will not be discontinued by respondent no.1. 5 All other issues and contentions raised in the petition are not necessary to be adjudicated at this stage and, therefore, we dispose off these petitions accordingly. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.