Created byFuzzy Cloud

High Court of Gujarat

SHAILESHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal
47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

Holding

The Court held that, since GETCO had not considered the petitioners' objections, the appropriate remedy is for the petitioners to approach the District Collector, and therefore declined to issue a writ of mandamus.

Summary

The petitioners, who had purchased ten parcels of agricultural land and sought conversion to non‑agricultural use, learned that GETCO intended to lay a 400 kV Kalipura (Prantij) Lilo line through survey numbers 186 and 187 of their property. They filed a special civil application under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 300A of the Constitution and Section 226 of the Constitution read with the Electricity Act, 2003, seeking a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ to restrain GETCO from undertaking foundation, erection or wiring work and to shift the line to the boundary of the surveyed land. The Court examined the petition and observed that GETCO had not considered the petitioners’ objections. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioners to approach the concerned District Collector, who must consider the objections and give a hearing within two months, and dismissed the petition without granting the writ. The rule was discharged and direct service permitted.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing GETCO to shift the proposed 400 kV electricity line away from the petitioners' land.
  • Whether the petitioners have a constitutional right under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A to restrain the laying of the electricity line.
  • Whether the appropriate remedy is to approach the District Collector rather than the Court.

Legislation cited

Subjects

writ of mandamuselectricity lineland conversionconstitutional rightsSection 226Electricity Act 2003District CollectorGujarat

Judgment

     C/SCA/9644/2024                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9644 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                   Yes          No

==========================================================
                       SHAILESHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL & ANR.
                                      Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UDAY M JOSHI(380) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR SP HASURKAR(345) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NIKUNJ KANARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                                 Date : 04/05/2026

                                   JUDGMENT


1.      RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1
and Mr. SP Hasurkar, learned counsel waives service of notice of
rule on behalf of the respondent no.2.


2.      With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective
parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.


3.      Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14,
19(1)(g), 300A and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the

                                     Page 1 of 4
     C/SCA/9644/2024                              JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




provisions Electricity Act, 2003 seeking following reliefs:


        “9.1. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
        mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
        appropriate writ order or direction directing GETCO
        /Respondent No.2, his servants and agents not to undertake
        work of foundation / erection / wiring for electricity lines
        pertaining to 400 KV Kalipura (Prantij) Lilo Line in survey
        Nos.186 and 187 of village Gora, Taluka: Talod, Dist.
        Sabarkantha as demonstrated in the Map and to shift the same
        to a suitable place at the boundary line of the said survey
        numbers.


        9.2. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR
        LORDSHIPS may be pleased to restrain Respondent No.2 his
        servants    and     agents      from    undertaking    work    of
        foundation/erection / wiring for electricity lines pertaining to
        400 KV Kalipura (Prantij) Lilo Line in survey Nos. 186 and 187 of
        village Gora, Taluka: Talod, Dist. Sabarkantha.


        9.3. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant ex-parte ad-
        interim relief in terms of para 9.2 above.


        9.4. Any other further relief/s as may deem fit in the facts of the
        case be granted.”



4.      Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the
petitioners had purchased in all 10 parcels of land of different
survey numbers and had applied for conversion of the said
parcels of land which are agricultural into non-agricultural. That,
it came to knowledge of Petitioners that GETCO had proposed
laying down foundation for installation of 400 KV electricity lines
[Kalipura (Prantij) Lilo Line] which would pass through survey
numbers 186 and 187 purchased by Petitioners. That, the entire


                                  Page 2 of 4
     C/SCA/9644/2024                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




action was proposed without any knowledge of Petitioners. That,
petitioners have thereafter been following up with concerned
authorities of GETCO for purpose of shifting electricity lines to
the border of survey S.No. 186 which would be in the interest of
all concerned to which no heed is being paid to. That,
applications filed by Petitioners were responded to conveying
that as per present position of DILR's map electricity lines would
pass through S.Nos. 184, 185, 186 and 224. Being aggrieved by
the action of respondent no.2, the petitioners have filed the
present petition.


5.      Heard Mr. Uday Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and Mr. SP
Hasurkar, learned counsel for respondent no.2.


6.      Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it
appears that GETCO had proposed laying down foundation for
installation of 400 KV electricity lines [Kalipura (Prantij) Lilo Line]
which would pass through survey numbers 186 and 187
purchased by petitioners. It appears that the petitioners had
approached             concerned   authorities    for      shifting      proposed
electricity lines to another place in the same survey numbers.


7.      I have considered the averments made in the petition and
considered the submissions canvassed by both the parties. This
Court is of the opinion that as respondent no.2 has not
considered the application of the petitioner and the objections
raised by the petitioner before it, it is open for the petitioner to


                                    Page 3 of 4
       C/SCA/9644/2024                                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026




 approach the concerned District Collector and agitate his
 grievance and objections before the same. The concerned
 District Collector shall consider and decide the objection raised
 by the petitioner in accordance with law after giving proper
 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as
 possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date
 of receipt of writ of this order.


 8.        With the aforesaid observation and direction, the petition is
 disposed of. Rule is discharged. Direct service is permitted.


                                                                (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
 ANUSRI


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/05/2026 09:19:55




                                                 Page 4 of 4


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "writ of mandamus"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.