EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O AND M) - PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITEDversusM/S AMUL CRANKSHAFT PVT LTD

     C/SCA/13053/2024                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13053 of 2024

                                   With
               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14920 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

             Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

================================================================
                   AMUL CRANKSHAFT PRIVATE LIMITED
                                Versus
               EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O AND M), PGVCL & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
PRIYAL M PARIKH(7593) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV SHARMA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 02/04/2026

                           COMMON JUDGMENT


1.       Since common issue is involved in the captioned writ petitions,
the same are heard analogously and are being decided by this
common judgment.


2.       Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya,
waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent
No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Vaibhav Sharma,
waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent
No.2.



                                  Page 1 of 12
     C/SCA/13053/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




3.       With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the petitions have been taken up for final hearing
today.


4.       By way of present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India read with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003
(hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”), the respective petitioners
have challenged the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the
respondent No.2 – Chief Electrical Inspector and Appellate Authority,
Gandhinagar (hereinafter be referred to as “the Appellate Authority”)
in Appeal No. 1 of 2021 pursuant to the remand application heard by
the respondent No.2 in furtherance of the order dated 24.11.2021
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal
No. 874 of 2021. By virtue of the impugned order dated 15.12.2021,
the learned Appellate Authority has directed the respondent No.1
herein to recalculate the final assessment bill for unauthorized use of
electricity at twice the rate and deduct the charges already recovered
therefor from the present petitioner during the period of assessment.
It was also directed that the amount deposited by the present
petitioner be adjusted / refunded against the bill so recalculated.


5.       In view of the fact that Special Civil Application No. 13053 of
2024 is treated as lead matter, facts mentioned in the said Special
Civil Application are considered. It is the case of the petitioner that,
the Petitioner had established its manufacturing unit in Shed No.2 of
Ashish Industrial Compound and for expansion of their business, the
petitioner set-up an additional manufacturing unit adjoining to the
existing facility by taking on lease the shed admeasuring 702 sq.
mtrs. of Aarcee Precision Casting Pvt. Ltd. That, for the purpose of


                                  Page 2 of 12
   C/SCA/13053/2024                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




catering to the power requirements of the new unit, the petitioner
vide its letter dated 16.04.2010 informed PGVCL that it had taken on
lease the adjoining shed and requested to consider both sheds as
their premises. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the
petitioner would obtain the wiring approved by the Electrical
Inspector. That, the PGVCL replied to the aforesaid letter asking the
petitioner to furnish the ownership documents of the shed of Aarcee
Precision Casting Pvt. Ltd. within 10 days and in response to the
same, the petitioner provided the required ownership documents to
the PGVCL. That, the PGVCL replied to the above letter, inter alia,
informing that upon perusal of the documents it is found that the
premises which is sought to be amalgamated/merged has been
granted on special conditions for a different purpose and on a
different survey number and that in no circumstances the said
premises can be amalgamated/merged with the existing premises. It
was further mentioned in the above letter that it was a case of breach
of conditions of grant of land and that therefore, as per the rules and
regulations of the PGVCL the application of the petitioner is rejected.
That, in response to the above, the petitioner replied vide a letter
informing, inter alia, that the adjoining land of Aarcee Precision
Casting Pvt. Ltd. was also granted for Industrial purpose and that
there is no case of breach of conditions.


5.1    It is further the case of the petitioner that, the PGVCL vide letter
dated 17.09.2010 informed the petitioner that apropos to the
Development Permission granted by Rajkot Urban Development
Authority, as per the Special Condition No.3, the petitioner was
required to produce a "No Objection Certificate” from Rajkot Urban
Development Authority within 10 days. In response thereto, the
petitioner informed the PGVCL that the abovementioned condition in


                                 Page 3 of 12
   C/SCA/13053/2024                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




Development Permission of RUDA relates to regularization fees and
thus the same is not applicable to it and only the PGVCL - Distribution
License was required to verify the N.A. order. That thereafter, an
officer of PGVCL came for checking the HT installation at the
abovementioned premise, however, in the 'checking sheet' prepared
by the officer, no observation regarding unauthorized utilization of
electrical power was made. That, the petitioner provided ‘Work
Completion Report' to PGVCL and requested for site inspection and
requested for requisite permission. That, the petitioner also informed
PGVCL that the wiring for extension of power supply to adjoining shed
was completed and the ‘Work Connection Report’ had already been
filed with the Office of the Electrical Inspector. That, the petitioner
also   submitted      the   Test   Report,        Work   Commencement             and
Completion Report and receipt of the fees paid. That, more than 9
months after the aforesaid development, a checking team of PGVCL
arrived at the premise of the petitioner for inspection of the HT
Installation and a Rojkam and HT Installation Checking Sheet was filed
wherein, a note was made mentioning, that it was a case of
unauthorized extension of power boundary and that PGVCL may take
necessary steps as per the rules. That, therefore, the petitioner
immediately addressed a letter to PGVCL stating that the usage of
electricity at unit No.2 cannot be considered as unauthorized use of
electricity and that Provisional Bill should not be raised as the
petitioner had utilized the electricity only after complying with the due
process. That, on the basis of the aforesaid checking sheet and
notwithstanding the petitioner's letter dated 27.08.2011, PGVCL vide
its letter dated 29.08.2011 served the petitioner with a Provisional
Assessment Bill. Thereafter, PGVCL informed the petitioner, for the
first time, that permission for amalgamation/merger of additional
premise with existing premise was not granted to them and their


                                   Page 4 of 12
   C/SCA/13053/2024                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




receipt for payment of fees for the Test Report was also not accepted.
It was further stated that there was unauthorized use of power and
therefore, the petitioner was required to pay the amount of the
provisional bill. That, the petitioner informed PGVCL that it has not
accept the provisional bill and requested the PGVCL to give an
opportunity of personal hearing and also filed written submissions and
Additional written submissions against the provisional bill. That, the
PGVCL after hearing the representative of the petitioner, issued a
Final Bill dated 26.09.2011 for an amount of Rs.52,06,835/-.


5.2    Being aggrieved by the Final Bill dated 26.09.2011 of the
PGVCL, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority by way of
an appeal under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as per
the rules, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.26,03,417/- (50%)
before the PGVCL for the purpose of appeal. That, the said appeal was
allowed by the Appellate Authority and the Final Bill was set aside.
That, against the said order of the Appellate Authority, PGVCL
preferred Special Civil Application No. 6553 of 2012 before the Court,
which was also dismissed, and the order of the Appellate Authority
was upheld. That, against the said order of the learned Single Judge,
PGVCL preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 874 of 2021 before the
Division Bench of this Court, whereby, the petitioner was permitted to
approach respondent No. 2 to resolve the matter thereby remanding
it back to the Chief Electrical Inspector Appellate Authority under
section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003. Pursuant to such remand, the
Appellate Authority/Respondent No. 2 vide the Impugned order dated
15.12.2021 held that the petitioner had indulged in unauthorized
usage of power in the adjoining plot of M/s. Arcee Precision Casting
Pvt. Ltd. and directed the respondent No.1 to recalculate the final
assessment bill for unauthorized use of electricity at twice the rate, by


                                Page 5 of 12
     C/SCA/13053/2024                           JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




deducting the charges already received from the petitioner during the
period of assessment.


6.       Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated
15.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No. 1 of 2021,
the petitioner – Company has preferred Special Civil Application No.
13053 of 2024 and the petitioner – PGVCL has preferred cross-petition
being Special Civil Application No. 14920 of 2025.


7.       Heard Ms. Priyal M. Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner – Company, Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.1 – PGVCL and Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, learned
Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent No.2 –
State Authority.


8.       Learned counsel Ms. Parikh has submitted that the impugned
order passed by the respondent authority is illegal, erroneous, unjust
and contrary to the facts on record and against the settled principles
of law and therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set
aside. She has submitted that the petitioner Company had submitted
all the documents sought for and had given an explanation to all the
queries raised by PGVCL from time to time, however, the respondent
No.2, without considering the same, has wrongly come to the
conclusion that the application of the petitioner for power boundary
extension was not granted on account of want of requisite documents.
She has submitted that when the petitioner provided ownership
documents in response to the respondent's query requesting for the
same, PGVCL never specifically sought for any document proving the
ownership of the said M/s Arcee Precision Casting Pvt. Ltd. and thus,
the respondent No.2 has wrongly observed that the petitioner ought


                                 Page 6 of 12
   C/SCA/13053/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




to have submitted "Dastavej" to PGVCL clarifying the ownership of M/s
Arcee Precision Casting Pvt. Ltd. and that without such Dastavej it
would be difficult to conclude the real ownership of M/s Arcee
Precision Casting Pvt Ltd. She has submitted that the respondent No.2
has failed to consider the fact that pursuant to the correspondence
exchanged between the petitioner and PGVCL from April, 2010 to
September, 2010 and pursuant to the clarifications provided by the
petitioner, the PGVCL did not raise any further query which led the
petitioner to believe in good faith that its explanations were accepted
by PGVCL and the permission for extension was deemed to be
granted. She has submitted that this was further vindicated by the
fact that when the officer of PGVCL came for checking the HT
installation of the petitioner on 26.10.2010, no observation or remark
was made in the checking sheet regarding the utilization of electrical
power by the petitioner at the adjoining shed, even though the wiring
for extension of power supply to adjoining premises was already done.
She has submitted that the respondent No.2 has failed to consider the
fact that after the wiring for extension of power of supply to adjoining
shed was completed, the petitioner filed the Works Commencement
and Completion Report with the Office of the Electrical Inspector and
thereafter submitted the test report of the wiring and paid requisite
fees to PGVCL in accordance with the GERC Supply Code, however,
the PGVCL did not undertake any further procedure as per the
provisions of the Supply Code. She has submitted that it is a settled
practice followed by PGVCL that once the test report is submitted to
PGVCL, additional load stands sanctioned and no formal letter or
permission is to be issued by PGVCL.


8.1    Learned counsel Ms. Parikh has submitted that the respondent
No.2 has not considered the fact that the respondent No.1 came up


                               Page 7 of 12
   C/SCA/13053/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




with a case of unauthorized use of electricity more than 10 months
after inspection of the petitioner's connection on 26.20.2010 (even
though power was being used by the petitioner on the adjoining land
at the time of the said inspection) and after submission of the
Completion of Works and Test Report by the petitioner, which
indicates the unfair and malafide conduct of the respondent No.1.
She has submitted that the respondent No.2 has recorded its findings
on the basis of an observation that the assessment was made only for
a period from 26.10.2010 to 26.08.2011 i.e. from the period of the
last inspection to the period of subsequent inspection and the period
prior to 26.10.2010 was excluded, however, it is an undisputed fact
that on 26.10.2010, when the officer of the PGVCL had come to the
premises of the petitioner for inspection, the petitioner was already
using power in the adjoining land but, no objection was raised by the
respondent at that relevant point of time, which fact has been entirely
ignored by the respondent No.2. She has submitted that the
Electricity Supply Code clearly provides that if the assessing officer
reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has
taken place, it shall be presumed that such unauthorized use of
electricity was continuing for a period of six months immediately
preceding the date of inspection for all other categories of services
(except domestic and agricultural services) and in the instant case,
the assessment for unauthorized use has been made for a period of
10 months, which is clearly in violation of law. She has submitted that
the respondent No.2 has completely ignored the factual observations
made earlier by the learned Appellate Authority as well as the learned
Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6553 of 2012
that, the road between the two adjoining plots was margin space and
not a public road and therefore, there was no question of there being
any issue in allowing the power extension sought for by the petitioner.


                               Page 8 of 12
     C/SCA/13053/2024                            JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




She has submitted that the respondent No.2 has not made any
observations whatsoever regarding the issue of the alleged "public
road", which was one of the alleged reasons for which the application
for power extension by the petitioner was not considered. She has
submitted that the respondent No.2 has failed to consider the fact
that there is no provision either in the Electricity Act, 2003 or the
Electricity Supply Code that prohibits extension of power supply from
existing premises to adjoining premises and despite the same, the
application of the petitioner was not considered in the proper
perspective by PGVCL, which unreasonably insisted for amalgamation
of plots of land. She has submitted that, it is a settled law that so long
as a consumer has utilized the energy for his purpose in his premises
irrespective of the number of plots or division, it would not amount to
unauthorized use and the Appellate Authority as well as the learned
Single Judge of this Court in SCA No. 6553 of 2012, after duly
considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record, had
come to the conclusion that the assessment bill for unauthorized use
of electricity raised by PGVCL was improper and unjustified and
therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.2, disturbing the
conclusive findings of the earlier order passed by the Appellate
Authority as well as this Court, more than 8 years after the alleged
incident, is clearly unreasonable and unjustified. Over and above the
grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Ms. Parikh
ha submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2
be quashed and set aside and the present petition be allowed.


9.       As against that, learned counsel Ms. Bhaya, appearing for the
respondent – PGVCL, has submitted that the           Appellate Authority
having confirmed unauthorized use of electricity and period of
assessment, has erred in directing the PGVCL to recalculate the final


                                Page 9 of 12
   C/SCA/13053/2024                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




assessment bill for unauthorized use of electricity at twice the rate
and deduct the charges already recovered therefor from the present
petitioner during the period of assessment. She has submitted that
the only reasoning given by the Appellate Authority in Para-5.7 of the
order that since the petitioner had already paid the charges for entire
consumption once for the unauthorized load during the billing period
and the respondent PGVCL has made twice the assessment for
unauthorized use of electricity, the total assessment made for
unauthorized units comes three times. Although it is lawful to charge
the petitioner by assessing unauthorized use of electricity with twice
the rate, the fact that the petitioner has paid the charges for
unauthorized load along with his regular bills cannot be ignored and
hence, it would be prudent to deduct the charges already recovered
by the respondent PGVCL towards unauthorized consumption during
the assessed period when the unauthorized consumption was also
duly metered and thus, the Appellate Authority having admitted that
the PGVCL can charge the unauthorized use of electricity with twice
the rate, has erred in holding that since the petitioner has already
paid charges for unauthorized load alongwith the regular bills and
therefore, it should be deducted. She has submitted that the direction
of the Appellate Authority is against the provisions of the Electricity
Act, 2003 and the Electricity Supply Code and also against the
provisions of Section 126(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section
126(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as under :-

       "126(6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to
       1[twice] the tariff rates applicable for the relevant category of services
       specified in sub-section (5)."


9.1    Relying upon Section 126(6), learned counsel Ms. Bhaya has
submitted that Section-126 nowhere provides to give deduction of the


                                   Page 10 of 12
   C/SCA/13053/2024                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




units for unauthorized use of electricity already billed and thus, the
direction given by the Appellate Authority is against the statutory
formula provided under the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 in Clause
No.7.2 thereof. She has submitted that the Appellate Authority has no
jurisdiction to issue directions dehors the provisions of the Electricity
Act, 2003 and the Electricity Supply Code and provide for
methodology for calculation of bill for unauthorized use of electricity
contrary to the formula provided therein. Under the circumstances,
learned counsel Ms. Bhaya has urged that the present petition be
dismissed and the petition preferred by PGVCL be allowed.


10.    I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone
through the impugned order passed by the respondent authority. On
perusal of the impugned order under challenge, it appears that
without considering the provisions of Section 126 of the Act and
without considering the fact that in the earlier round of litigation, this
Court has remitted the matter back to the concerned authority to
consider the issue afresh, the respondent authority has passed he
impugned order. Even the Appellate Authority has not assigned any
reason while passing the impugned order and the only reasoning is
given in para-5.7. The Appellate Authority has also not considered the
provisions of Section 126(6), which provides that assessment under
this section shall be made at a rate equal to 1[twice] the tariff rates
applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-
section (5), meaning thereby, that they have to pay double, however,
the Appellate Authority has not considered this aspect while passing
the impugned order. It also emerges from the record that the order of
the learned Single Judge was further challenged by the PGVCL before
this Court by way of preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 874 of 2021,


                                Page 11 of 12
          C/SCA/13053/2024                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




  whereby, the Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the appeal
  without expressing any opinion about the contentions raised by the
  parties and remanded the matter back to the concerned authority.
  Considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that the impugned
  order passed by the respondent authority is required to be quashed
  and set aside and the matter is required to be remitted back to the
  concerned authority for deciding the issue afresh.


  11.         In the result, both the petitions are partly allowed. The
  impugned order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 –
  Chief Electrical Inspector and Appellate Authority, Gandhinagar in
  Appeal No. 1 of 2021 is herby quashed and set aside. The matter is
  remanded back to the concerned authority for deciding the issue
  afresh, after affording proper and reasonable opportunity to both the
  sides. It is open for all the concerned parties to raise all the
  contentions available in the eye of law before the respondent
  authority and the same shall be considered by the respondent
  authority in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible,
  preferably within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of
  receipt of writ of this Order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
  extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                     (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

  Dolly




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/04/2026 17:58:42


                                                     Page 12 of 12