1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.9 OF 2009 New Era Fabrics Ltd. .. Petitioner Vs Mahanagar Gas Limited & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri M.M. Vashi i/by M.P. Vashi & Associates for the Petitioner. Shri Chetan Kapadia i/by Mustafa Motiwala for Respondent No.1. S/Shri Harinder Toor and S.K. Chari i/by M.V. Kini & Co. for proposed intervenor. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute before us that the gas supply was commenced by Mahanagar Gas Limited in terms of the contract entered into between the parties on 26th November, 2004. It is further contended at the Bar by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 that it had disconnected the gas supply only in furtherance to the letter received by the authorities dated 7th October, 2008, 10th November, 2008 and 18th December, 2008. The argument raised before us is 2 that the relationship and rights and obligations between the parties, i.e. the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, are controlled and governed by the terms of the Agreement dated 26th November, 2004. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 has not been able to show before us that the terms of this contract empower Respondent No.1 for disconnecting the gas supply for such a reason. It is also not stated that under the terms of their constitution or articles of association and memorandum, they are bound by the directions issued by the Corporation or any of its competent authority. That being the position in law, we hardly find any justification for Respondent No.1 to have disconnected the gas supply. 2. However, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant (in the Chamber Summons which is still to be filed ) stated that there is a serious fact which needs to be noticed by the Court as the Petitioner is misusing the gas supply and various authorities propose to take action against the said Petitioner. In this petition, we are not concerned as to what action the various authorities wish to take and they are free to take such action and are at liberty to 3 act in accordance with law and take such steps or pass appropriate orders against the Petitioner. 4. The abrupt disconnection of gas supply is not justified on any contractual or legal ground. We, therefore, direct Respondent No.1 to restore the gas supply to the Petitioner. However, the gas so supplied by Respondent No.1 shall only be used by the Petitioner for the purpose for which the gas has been sanctioned by Respondent No.1 and as per the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties. We further make it clear that Respondent No.1 would be at liberty to take such action as they deem fit necessary, in the event that Respondent No.1 is of the opinion that the Petitioner has committed any default or illegalities which empower Respondent No.1 to disconnect the gas supply henceforth. This order will not come in the way of Respondent No.1 in taking appropriate action in future in accordance with law. They are at liberty to take such steps as permissible to them and pass appropriate order as they deem fit in accordance with law. 4 5. In view of the above, the Petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J