NAROTAMBHAI MOHANLAL THUMBARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   C/SCA/15311/2024                                JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15311 of 2024

                                    With

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16560 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

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

           Approved for Reporting                 Yes          No
                                                               No
==========================================================
                      VANITABEN NAROTAMBHAI THUMBAR
                                   Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HANNAN A QURESHI(11351) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. VISHALKUMAR. R. TOMAR(14520) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 07/04/2026

                                JUDGMENT


1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Premal R. Joshi, learned
counsel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf
of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. With consent of learned
counsels appearing for both the sides, the matters are


                                  Page 1 of 11
  C/SCA/15311/2024                         JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026




taken up for final hearing today.


2. In view of the fact that identical and similar issue is
involved in both the petitions, they are being decided by
this common judgment.


3. Both these petitions are preferred by the petitioners
under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of
India r/w the provisions of Electricity Act challenging the
impugned connection from the respondent authority
pertaining to rejection of the electric connection.


4. Since an identical issue is involved, Special Civil
Application No.15311 of 2024 is treated as lead petition
and in the said petition, petitioner has prayed for
following relief/s:-

      “9(A) The Hon'ble Court may please to admit and allow
      this petition by issuing the writ of mandamus or
      certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing and
      setting aside the impugned communication from the
      respondent authority which at annexure-A pertaining to
      rejection of the electric connection in the facts and
      circumstances of the present case;

      (B) The Hon'ble Court may please to direct the
      respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein to provide electric
      connection at the property situated at B-103, Unnati
      Palace, Pipaliyanagar, Keshod, Junagadh;

      (C) Pending admission, hearing and till the final disposal
      of this present petition, this Hon'ble Court may please to
      direct the respondent no. 2 to grant electric connection


                            Page 2 of 11
  C/SCA/15311/2024                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026




      at the property situated at B-103, Unnati Palace,
      Pipaliyanagar, Keshod, Junagadh in the interest of
      justice;

      (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other
      and further orders, as may be deemed fit and proper by
      this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;"

5. The facts mentioned in the lead petition i.e. Special
Civil Application No.15311 of 2024 are that the petitioner
is residing with her family and is engaged in the
construction business along with her sons. In the year
2015, the petitioner undertook a project named “Unnati
Palace” on jointly owned land, comprising 24 flats. Due
to financial constraints, the petitioner borrowed money
from private individuals and, as security, handed over
documents of certain flats while also paying interest at
the rate of 7% per month. Despite having repaid amounts
exceeding the principal, the petitioner and her family
members were subjected to continuous harassment and
unlawful demands. Under such pressure, the petitioner
was compelled to execute sale deeds of several flats at
undervalued rates in favour of the said persons.


5.1 Thereafter, the said persons allegedly threatened the
petitioner’s         family,   trespassed        into      their     residence,
caused damage to property, and attempted to extort
money. Although complaints were lodged before the
police authorities, no effective action has been taken. In
the meantime, the petitioner applied for an electricity


                                  Page 3 of 11
     C/SCA/15311/2024                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026




connection for her flat; however, the same was denied on
the basis of objections raised by the said persons. Despite
the building being completed in 2016 and completion of
all necessary formalities, including payment of charges
and installation work, the electricity connection has not
been granted.


5.2 The petitioner, being the lawful owner and taxpayer
of     Flat      No.     301,    made       repeated           applications         and
representations seeking reasons for such denial; however,
no satisfactory response has been provided, nor have the
authorities             justified     their          action.      Under          these
circumstances,             the      petitioner        has      approached           this
Hon’ble Court by way of the present petition.


6. Heard Vilaskumar R. Thomar for learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel for
the respondent.


7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
persons objecting to the grant of electricity connection
have no locus standi and are merely acting to harass the
Petitioner, against whom multiple representations are
already under process.


7.1 He has submitted that any pending property dispute
has no bearing on the grant of an electricity connection.


                                      Page 4 of 11
  C/SCA/15311/2024                               JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026




He has submitted that the Petitioner is in possession of
the premises and has even initiated proceedings against
third-party money lenders. He has submitted that the
Respondent authority has wrongly denied the electricity
connection. As held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in
Executive            Engineer   vs.   Jayendra      Nanalal        Kachhi,
electricity is to be supplied to a consumer and not linked
to ownership or legality of possession. He has submitted
that under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is the
statutory duty of the distribution licensee to provide
electricity within the prescribed time and failure to do so
attracts penalty. He has submitted that the Respondent
has failed to comply with this mandate.


7.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Petitioner has purchased the property and invested
substantial resources but is unable to enjoy its use due to
the arbitrary denial since 2015and the Respondent
authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate property
disputes and in absence of any court order, denial of
electricity connection is unjustified.


7.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
objectors       have      neither     established    possession          nor
initiated any civil proceedings regarding ownership of the
premises. The Petitioner is in physical possession but is
unable to use the premises effectively. Learned counsel


                                 Page 5 of 11
  C/SCA/15311/2024                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026




for the petitioner submits that a positive recommendation
for granting the connection was earlier made, but it was
withheld due to objections from third parties and
granting the connection will cause no                         prejudice to any
party and is a basic necessity. He has submitted that the
Respondent has failed to provide reasons or relevant
documents,           including    copies          of     objections,        despite
requests.        He     has      submitted             that    the      electricity
connections have been granted to other occupants in the
same building and despite RTI requests the Respondent
has failed to disclose the basis for such approvals,
indicating arbitrary and discriminatory action.


7.4 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
action and / or inaction on the part of the respondent
authority is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and bad in
the eye or law, and therefore, the same deserves to be
quashed and set aside.


8. On the other hand, Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel
for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has objected the petition.


8.1 The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that
the application for grant of electricity connection was not
rejected arbitrarily, but was kept pending in view of
objections raised by third parties claiming rights over the


                                   Page 6 of 11
  C/SCA/15311/2024                            JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026




subject premises. It is contended that due to the
existence        of   a   dispute    regarding    ownership           and
possession, the Respondent authority acted cautiously
and refrained from granting the connection to avoid any
further legal complications or multiplicity of proceedings.
It is further submitted that the Petitioner has failed to
produce clear and conclusive documents establishing
undisputed possession and entitlement over the property.


8.2 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in
cases involving rival claims, the authority is required to
exercise administrative prudence and act in good faith,
which has been done in the present case. The reliance
placed by the Petitioner on judicial precedents is stated
to be distinguishable on facts, as the present matter
involves specific objections from third parties. It is also
contended that the electricity connection has not been
permanently denied but is kept pending until the dispute
is resolved or appropriate orders are passed by a
competent court. The Respondents deny all allegations of
arbitrariness, discrimination, or mala fide intention and
submit that their actions are in accordance with the
applicable rules and procedures. Hence, it is prayed that
the present Petition be dismissed as premature and
devoid of merits.




                               Page 7 of 11
  C/SCA/15311/2024                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026




9. I have perused the materials and relevant documents
available on record. I have also gone through the record
of the petition as well as impugned communication.


10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having perused the material on record this
Court finds that the petitioner has duly established
ownership            as    well       as    possession         over    the     subject
property. Despite such situation the action of respondent
authority in not granting or restoring the electricity
connection to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, unjust
and contrary to the statutory mandate.


11. 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
authority       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.




                                           Page 8 of 11
  C/SCA/15311/2024                         JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026




12. Considering the settled legal principle enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court as early as 2010,
respondent authority 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.


13. 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
      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. "


13. 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 authority on the ground of objection raised by
third party. Further, it appears that the estimated



                            Page 9 of 11
  C/SCA/15311/2024                               JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026




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


14. 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 certificate. 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."


15. It is a settled position of law that electricity, being a
basic amenity, cannot be denied to a person on the
ground of absence of a no objection certificate from the
landlord, and the authority is only required to verify the
applicant's occupation of the premises.

16. For the foregoing reasons both the petitions are
allowed. The impugned communications dated 2.9.2024
issued by respondent authority (Annexure-A of both the
petitions)      are   hereby   quashed         and   set    aside.       The
respondent authorities are hereby directed to supply new
electricity connection to both the petitioners as prayed



                               Page 10 of 11
    C/SCA/15311/2024                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026




for in both the petitions, 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
in both the petition. 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 13/04/2026 17:00:15




                                                      Page 11 of 11