Holding

A distribution licensee must supply electricity to an applicant who has established ownership and possession, and cannot condition the supply on a NOC from co‑owners.

Summary

Manojbhai Rupareliya, a protected tenant and cultivator of agricultural land, applied for a new electricity connection and the upgrade of an existing transformer. Although his application was approved and fees paid, the electricity company (respondent No.3) refused to proceed, citing the need for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from co‑owners of a well on the land, namely respondents No.4 and No.5. The petitioner argued that under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the right to electricity as part of Article 21, the utility is statutorily obliged to supply electricity to the owner/occupier once possession is established. The respondents contended that the NOC requirement was lawful and that the dispute over joint ownership barred the connection. The Court held that the utility cannot withhold supply on the ground of co‑owner consent once the applicant’s ownership and possession are proven, quashed the communication dated 15‑07‑2022, and directed the respondent to provide the new connection within eight weeks. The petition was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

The electricity distribution company’s duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 when the applicant is the owner/occupier.
Whether the requirement of a No Objection Certificate from co‑owners can be imposed as a condition for granting a new connection.
Whether the utility can adjudicate disputes of title or ownership among co‑owners.
Whether the petitioner’s right to electricity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 21, s. Article 226
Electricity Act, 2003s. 43
Right to Information Act, 2005

Subjects

electricity connectionright to electricityconsumer rightsSection 43Article 21co‑ownershipNOCarbitrary actionmandatory supply

Judgment

C/SCA/15830/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15830 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
MANOJBHAI KANJIBHAI RUPARELIYA
Versus
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARESH N JOSHI(1871) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 23/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned
counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Pratik Jasni, learned
counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
respondent Nos. 4 and 5. With consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is
taken up for $nal disposal today.

2. Present petition is preferred by the petitioner under

Page 1 of 13
C/SCA/15830/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, under the
provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, under Rules 3 and 4 of
the Electricity (Rights of Consumer) Rules, 2020 r/w the
Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity
Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations 2015 with
below mentioned relief/s:-

"8(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ
of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ in the
nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the respondent No.3 to
provide/restore new electricity connection in favour of
the petitioner at the property of the petitioner;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and (nal disposal of
this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct
the respondent No.3 to provide/restore new electricity
connection in favour of the petitioner at the property of
the petitioner;

(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this
Hon'ble Court deemed (t, in the interest of justice; may
kindly be granted;"

3. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the
petitioner is the owner and cultivator of agricultural lands
bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 82 Paiki 1, 80, 81, 87 Paiki
2 and 88, admeasuring in aggregate Hectare 03-26-78
Are-Sq. Mtrs. The petitioner is in possession of the said
lands and is earning his livelihood through agricultural
activities carried out thereon.

3.1 The said lands were originally owned and cultivated
by the petitioner’s father, late Kanjibhai Vallabhjibhai
Rupareliya. After his demise on 29.11.1995, the petitioner

Page 2 of 13
C/SCA/15830/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

has been cultivating and taking care of the said lands and
continues to remain in possession thereof. The petitioner
has also been recognized as a protected tenant by the
Gram Panchayat.

3.2 As per say of the petitioner certain private
respondents had earlier attempted to interfere with and
grab the petitioner’s land, which led to a police
complaint; however, the dispute was subsequently
settled. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to enjoy
peaceful possession of the lands, as re@ected in the
revenue records.

3.3 The petitioner applied for a new electricity connection
for the agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 80.
The application was approved and the requisite charges
were paid. Upon request of the petitioner, the electricity
company also agreed to upgrade the transformer
capacity. However, when the oBicials attempted to carry
out the work, obstruction was caused by respondent
No.5, preventing installation.

3.4 Despite complaints and representations made by the
petitioner and even by the electricity company to the
police authorities, no eBective action was taken.
Subsequently, the electricity company raised objections
on the ground that the well situated on the land was in
joint name and required consent of another person, and
on that basis refused to proceed with the installation of
the electricity connection.

Page 3 of 13
C/SCA/15830/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

3.5 The petitioner made several representations to the
concerned authorities seeking implementation of the
sanctioned electricity connection, and also sought
information under the Right to Information Act.
Meanwhile, objections were also raised by private
respondents before the electricity authorities, leading to
internal correspondence and inquiry by the oBicials.

3.6 Ultimately, despite approval of the application and
compliance by the petitioner, the electricity connection
has not been released, giving rise to the present
grievance. Being aggrieved by the inaction and arbitrary
conduct of the respondent authorities in not providing the
electricity connection, the petitioner has preferred
present petition with above quoted relief/s.

4. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1
to 3 and Mr. Pratik Jasani, learned counsel for respondent
Nos. 4 and 5.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner is a bona $de consumer who had applied
for an agricultural electricity connection at the parcel of
land situated at Village Morasa. It is submitted that the
petitioner made an application for a new agricultural
electricity connection on 22.09.2021, bearing application
No. 14217692, which was duly received by the
respondent authorities vide receipt No. QY182615 and
pursuant thereto, the estimated charges were

Page 4 of 13
C/SCA/15830/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

communicated to the petitioner, and the petitioner has
duly paid the said amount.

5.1 It is further submitted that the petitioner was already
having an existing electricity connection of 10 KW
transformer, which was required to be converted into a
16 KW transformer at the new location. However, at the
time of processing and granting the electricity
connection, respondent No.5, who is the brother of the
petitioner, raised an objection contending that the well
situated on the said parcel of land is jointly owned by the
petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5, and that they are
co-sharers. On such basis, it was objected that without his
consent, the application of the petitioner ought not to be
considered.

5.2 It is submitted that solely on account of such
objection, respondent No.3, by communication dated
15.07.2022, refused to consider the application of the
petitioner and rejected the request for supply of a new
electricity connection, as well as for conversion of the
existing 10 KW connection into a 16 KW transformer. It is
contended that the respondent authority has acted in an
arbitrary and high-handed manner in rejecting the
application of the petitioner without properly
appreciating the relevant facts and legal position.

5.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
inaction on the part of respondent No.3 in not granting
and/or restoring the electricity connection to the

Page 5 of 13
C/SCA/15830/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary
to the settled principles of law. He has submitted that the
petitioner has duly established that he is the owner and is
in lawful and peaceful possession of the property in
question. Despite such clear establishment, respondent
No.3 has failed to discharge its statutory obligation of
providing electricity connection to the petitioner, which
action is ex facie illegal and unsustainable.

5.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003
casts a statutory duty upon the electricity distribution
company to supply electricity to the owner or occupier of
any premises upon application. He has submitted that the
said provision has been consistently interpreted by this
Hon’ble Court in catena of decisions, holding that once
possession of the premises is established, the electricity
company is duty-bound to provide connection. He has
submitted that in the present case, even the pre-audit
report carried out by respondent No.3 clearly re@ects
that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing
Revenue Survey Nos. 80 to 88, thereby substantiating the
claim of the petitioner.

5.5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the “right to electricity” forms an integral part of the
right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and the petitioner is entitled to claim the same and the
inaction on the part of respondent No.3 is therefore not
only contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act,

Page 6 of 13
C/SCA/15830/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

2003, but also in violation of the Electricity (Rights of
Consumers) Rules, 2020 and the Gujarat Electricity
Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and
Related Matters) Regulations, 2015.

5.6 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the denial and/or non-consideration of the petitioner’s
request by respondent No.3 is highly arbitrary,
unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act,
2003 mandates that electricity supply be provided to any
person who is the owner or occupier of the premises. He
has submitted that the petitioner ful$lls both these
requirements, being the owner as well as the occupier of
the agricultural land in question. Moreover, the petitioner
had already been granted electricity connection earlier
and is therefore entitled to restoration of the same upon
compliance with requisite formalities.

5.7 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the revenue records as well as the electricity bills issued
by respondent No.3 clearly establish that the petitioner is
in peaceful possession and is the owner of the property
bearing Revenue Survey No. 80. The petitioner has been
regularly paying the electricity bills for the said premises,
and the receipts annexed on record further substantiate
continuous possession and lawful entitlement.

5.8 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

Page 7 of 13
C/SCA/15830/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

action and/or inaction on the part of respondent No.3 is
illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and bad in the eye of
law, and therefore the same deserves to be quashed and
set aside.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Dipak R. Dave and Mr. Jasani,
learned counsels for the respondents have objected the
petition.

6.1 It is submitted that the present petition is
misconceived, premature and devoid of merits and
therefore deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is
submitted that the petitioner has challenged the
communication dated 15.07.2022 issued by respondent
No.3; however, the said communication merely requires
the petitioner to procure a No Objection Certi$cate
(NOC) from other stakeholders and does not, in any
manner, reject the application of the petitioner. Hence,
no cause of action has arisen for invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

6.2 It is further submitted that the requirement of
obtaining NOC is just, proper and in accordance with law,
particularly in the facts of the present case where the
property in question involves multiple stakeholders. It is
an admitted position that there already exists an
electricity connection in respect of Revenue Survey No.
80 in the name of the father of the petitioner and
respondent No.4, and the well situated therein is in joint
ownership. Therefore, any unilateral act on the part of

Page 8 of 13
C/SCA/15830/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

the petitioner in seeking shifting or grant of electricity
connection would be prejudicial to the rights and
interests of the answering respondent.

6.3 It is submitted that the petitioner has not approached
the authorities with clean hands and has suppressed
material facts. The petitioner failed to disclose the
existence of other stakeholders, incorrectly stated in
Form A-1 that consent of co-sharers had been obtained,
and produced defective and misleading documents with
regard to the ownership of the well. Upon veri$cation by
the concerned Talati and preparation of Panchnama, it
has been conclusively established that the well and the
land are jointly owned, thereby fully justifying the
insistence on obtaining NOC from all concerned parties.

6.4 It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the
application submitted by the petitioner would reveal that
the request is, in substance, for shifting of an existing
electricity connection and not for grant of a fresh
connection. As per the applicable regulations, including
Condition No. 15(5) of Form A-1, such shifting necessarily
requires consent of co-sharers. The answering respondent
has categorically objected to the proposed action, as the
same would seriously prejudice his right to use the jointly
owned well for agricultural purposes.

6.5 It is submitted that respondent No.3 has acted strictly
within the bounds of law and has neither committed any
illegality nor acted arbitrarily. The impugned

Page 9 of 13
C/SCA/15830/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

communication is issued only to ensure that the rights of
all stakeholders are protected and to balance the
competing claims. The petitioner’s intention is mala $de,
aimed at depriving the answering respondent of his
lawful rights and causing undue hardship.

6.6 It is a settled principle of law that a party who
approaches this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands and
suppresses material facts is not entitled to any equitable
relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
dismiss the present petition and direct the petitioner to
comply with the requirement of obtaining NOC as
stipulated in the communication dated 15.07.2022, in the
interest of justice.

7. I have perused the materials and relevant
documents available on record. I have also gone through
the record of the petition.

8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having perused the material on record, this
Court $nds that the petitioner has duly established his
ownership as well as possession over the subject
property, more particularly the land bearing the
concerned Revenue Survey Numbers. The revenue
records, electricity bills issued by respondent No.3 and
the pre-audit report placed on record clearly substantiate
the case of the petitioner. Despite such material being

Page 10 of 13
C/SCA/15830/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

available on record, the inaction on the part of
respondent No.3 in not granting or restoring the
electricity connection to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary,
unjust and contrary to the statutory mandate.

9. This Court notes that Section 43 of the Electricity Act,
2003 casts a mandatory statutory duty upon the
distribution licensee to supply electricity to the owner or
occupier of the premises upon application. Once the
petitioner has established his status as an owner and
occupier of the premises in question, respondent No.3
could not have denied or withheld the electricity
connection. It is well settled in catena of decisions that
the electricity authority cannot adjudicate disputes of title
between co-owners nor can it insist upon consent of other
co-sharers once possession of the applicant is established.

10. Considering the settled legal principle enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court as early as 2010,
respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot venture to decide issues
among co-owners or questions of right and title, nor can
they insist upon the consent of other co-sharers.

11. At this stage, it appropriate to refer decision of
Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal
No.91 of 2010 dated 27.1.2010, whereby the Division
Bench of this Court has observed that:-

"In the present case, Counsel for the appellant has failed
to show that any provision laid down under law or
guidelines allowing a company to recover its dues by
seizure of property or by auction sale of such property

Page 11 of 13
C/SCA/15830/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

for which condition is imposed on consumer to show
right or title in giving electrical connection. Such power
being not vested under the law with the company and as
the company cannot decide the disputed question of
right and title, we are of the view that ownership or right
of occupancy has no nexus with grant of electrical
connection to a consumer."

12. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the
opinion that the question of ownership or right of
occupancy has no nexus with the grant of an electricity
connection to a consumer who is otherwise entitled, and
if there are no due electricity charges outstanding against
the petitioner, his application cannot be denied by
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the ground that the petitioner
is unable to produce the consent of other co-sharers.
Further, it appears that the estimated charges were
communicated to the petitioner, and the petitioner has
duly paid the said amount.

13. It is also appropriate to refer the decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in a case of Dilip (Dead) Through LRs vs.
Satish and other reported in 2022 INSC 570 wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.9 has observed
as under:-

"9. It is now well settled proposition of law that
electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be
deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on
the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no
objection certi(cate. All that the electricity supply
authority is required to examine is whether the applicant
for electricity connection is in occupation of the
premises in question."

14. It is a settled position of law that electricity, being a

Page 12 of 13
C/SCA/15830/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

basic amenity, cannot be denied to a person on the
ground of absence of a no objection certi$cate from the
landlord, and the authority is only required to verify the
applicant’s occupation of the premises.

15. For the foregoing reasons the impugned
communication dated 15.07.2022 issued by respondent
No.3 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent
No.1 to 3, more particularly respondent No.3 are hereby
directed to supply new electricity connection to present
petitioner as prayed for, as early as possible preferably
within period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of the order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. No order as to costs.
Direct service is permitted.

Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/03/2026 16:31:18

Page 13 of 13