ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1049 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1049 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1049 OF 2007 Vijay Govind More ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.V.S.Talkute for the Petitioner. Ms.S.S.Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA & : V.C.DAGA & : V.C.DAGA & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V.MOHTA, V.MOHTA, V.MOHTA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 9TH JANUARY, 2009. : 9TH JANUARY, 2009. : 9TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The observations made in Para 4 and 5 of the impugned order read as under. "4. From the point of natural justice a copy of the enquiry report has been sent to the Applicant vide this office letter dated 31/03/2000 and asked to submit his say on or before 25/04/2000. On 18/04/2000 the applicant applied for extension of time. Again vide letter dated 19/06/2000 was asked to submit his say on or before 03/07/2000. On 03/07/2000 the Applicant has applied for extension of time. Again vide letter dated 16/11/2000 the Applicant was asked to submit his say on or before 11/12/2000. On 11/12/2000 the Applicant has applied for extension of time. Again vide letter dated 23/01/2004 the ( 2 ) Applicant was asked to submit his say on or before 07/10/2005, but the Applicant has not submitted his written say. Vide this office letter dated 18/07/2006 the Applicant was asked to submit necessary documents, but the Applicant has not responded the Committee’s letter. 5. The applicant was given opportunity of personal hearing on 21/12/2004. The Applicant remained absent for personal hearing. Again the Applicant was given an opportunity of personal hearing on 21/11/2006, but the applicant has not availed the same and remained absent for personal hearing. 2. Having seen the aforesaid observations, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. In spite of grant of repeated adjournments, the Petitioner has failed to encash the same, as such the Petitioner cannot be allowed to make a complaint about the breach of principal of natural justice. The view taken in the impugned order is reasonable and possible view based upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out to entertain this Petition. The same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] [V.C.DAGA,J] [V.C.DAGA,J] [V.C.DAGA,J]