MITHUBHAI MANGALDAS NAKAR (RAJGOR)versusPACHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED

     C/SCA/7130/2026                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7130 of 2026


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

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

            Approved for Reporting                  Yes          No
                                                                 No
==========================================================
                   MITHUBHAI MANGALDAS NAKAR (RAJGOR)
                                 Versus
                   PACHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
BHARATKUMAR K VIZODA(8026) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                                Date : 08/05/2026

                                ORAL JUDGMENT


1.      RULE           returnable   forthwith.     Mr.    Chinmay       Gandhi,
learned counsel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
respondent.

2.      With consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal
today.

3.      Present petition is preferred by the petitioner under
Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read


                                     Page 1 of 9
   C/SCA/7130/2026                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




with the provisions under Section 56 of the Electricity Act,
2003 with below mentioned relief/s:-

      “9 (A) Be pleased to direct the action of PGVCL of
      disconnecting      electricity   connections  bearing    no.
      39810/00068/5, illegal and direct the PGVCL to reconnect the
      said electricity connections forthwith, and

      (B) Be pleased to direct the PGVCL to reconnect the
      electricity connections bearing no. 39810/00068/5 forthwith,
      subject to final disposal of present petition, and

      (C) Grant ad-interim relief by directing the PGVCL to
      reconnect     the electricity  connections     bearing    no.
      39810/00068/5 forthwith, subject to final disposal of present
      petition, and

       (D) Direct the respondent PGVCL to cost for causing mental
      and physical harassment to the petitioners by disconnecting
      the electricity connection, and

      (E) Grant any other relief or ass any other order which the
      Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the
      facts and circumstances of the case;”

4. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the
Petitioner’s father, late Mangaldas Govindji, had purchased
land bearing Survey No. 779/06 situated at Village Gundiyali
by a registered sale deed dated 23.04.1975 executed by
Rajgor Megji Velji. Pursuant thereto, an electricity connection
bearing Consumer No. 39810/00068/5 was granted in his
name and the same has been continuously used for residential
purposes for several decades. The name of the Petitioner’s
father was initially entered in the revenue record; however,
the   said     entry         was    subsequently      removed       without          his
knowledge.           After    the    death     of    Mangaldas      Govindji         on
04.08.2006, the Petitioner, being unaware of the legal
procedure, could not mutate the names of the legal heirs in

                                       Page 2 of 9
   C/SCA/7130/2026                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




the revenue record. Thereafter, the heirs of the original seller
entered their names in the revenue record, which entry has
been challenged by the Petitioner before the competent
authority. Since the heirs of Rajgor Megji Velji attempted to
interfere with the Petitioner’s possession of the property, the
legal heirs of Mangaldas Govindji instituted Regular Civil Suit
No. 99 of 2025 before the learned Principal Civil Judge,
Mandvi-Kachchh            seeking       declaration        and         permanent
injunction, and the said suit is pending adjudication.
It is further submitted that the Respondent authority issued a
communication dated 20.06.2025 calling upon the Petitioner
to produce ownership documents in relation to the aforesaid
land and electricity connection. In response thereto, the
Petitioner produced the registered sale deed and Gram
Panchayat certificate.


4.1    Thereafter,        the   Respondent           issued      notice      dated
23.03.2026 threatening disconnection of electricity supply on
the ground that documents such as 7/12 extract, 8-A and title
documents were not produced. The Petitioner replied to the
said   notice        on   02.04.2026      and      furnished     all    available
supporting documents. It is submitted that Village Bagh is not
a separate revenue village and forms part of Village Gundiyali,
where      residential      houses      are       historically    situated          on
agricultural lands. The property is assessed by the Gram
Panchayat and taxes are regularly paid. The Petitioner has
already produced the registered sale deed, Gram Panchayat
records and old revenue entries showing possession of the
Petitioner’s father, and the Petitioner and his family have
remained in long-standing possession and enjoyment of the

                                    Page 3 of 9
     C/SCA/7130/2026                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




property. Despite the pendency of the civil dispute and
production             of   the   relevant    documents,   the     Respondent
authorities disconnected the electricity supply and removed
the meter on 21.04.2026, which action is arbitrary, illegal and
violative of the Petitioner’s rights.


5.      Being aggrieved by the inaction and arbitrary conduct of
the respondent in disconnecting the electricity connection, the
petitioner has preferred present petition with above quoted
relief/s.

6.      Heard Mr. Bharatkumar K. Vizoda, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Chinmay
Gandhi,        learned        counsel     appearing   on     behalf      of    the
respondent.

7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the conduct of all the respondents, including the officers of
the PGVCL, is absolutely in defiance of the dignity and
authority of the Court of law as the efforts are to frustrate the
suit and to overreach the Court case. He has submitted that
the private respondents have used respondent PGVCL as a
tool to get the property vacated in an absolutely unlawful
manner. He has submitted that the action of the PGVCL is
directly in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, as the
impugned action of disconnection has been carried out
without issuance of mandatory prior notice, without granting
the petitioner an opportunity to explain or rectify any alleged
dues/defects, if any, and it is a settled law that no civil
consequences can be imposed without hearing, and abrupt



                                        Page 4 of 9
   C/SCA/7130/2026                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




disconnection violates audi alteram partem.

7.1     Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the act of disconnection is arbitrary, unreasonable and
violative of Article 14, as the officers of respondent PGVCL
have     acted       without    following       statutory     requirements,
prescribed       regulations,    or   uniform      procedures.        He     has
submitted that the officers of the PGVCL have acted in
violation of Electricity Act, 2003 and Supply Code under
Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, disconnection can
be resorted to only after a 15-days written notice for non-
payment of dues and the petitioner reiterate that he has paid
all the bills till date and no dues are pending. He has
submitted that if the notice was not served, improperly
served, or was vague, the disconnection becomes illegal and
void. He has submitted that the case of the petitioner can be
appreciated from the perspective that the officers of the
PGVCL are absolutely out of authority as issuance of the
statutory notice for due is also provided in the provisions of
the Act and therefore, action disconnecting the undisputed
and uninterrupted electricity connection without giving any
opportunity of hearing, is completely in the defiance of
principles of natural justice.


7.2     Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner repeatedly urged the officials of the PGVCL not
to disconnect the electricity connection, however, they were
adamant with their approach as they, for the reason best
known to them, wanted to play in the hands of the private
respondent and therefore, the petitioner approached this


                                  Page 5 of 9
   C/SCA/7130/2026                            JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




Court for redressal of their grievance. He 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.

7.3   Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the denial and/or non-consideration of the petitioner’s request
by respondent 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 fulfills both
these requirements, being the owner as well as the occupier
of the property in question and is, therefore, entitled to
restoration of the same upon compliance with requisite
formalities. He has submitted that 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.

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



                               Page 6 of 9
     C/SCA/7130/2026                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




8.      On the other hand, Mr. Chinmay Gandhi, learned
counsel for the respondent has objected the present petition
and submitted that the present petition is misconceived,
premature and devoid of merits and therefore, deserves to be
dismissed in limine.

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

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 his ownership as
well      as     possession   over    the       subject    property,       more
particularly the land bearing the concerned Revenue Survey
Number. The revenue records and electricity bills issued by
respondent placed on record clearly substantiate the case of
the petitioner. Despite such material being available on
record, the inaction on the part of respondent in not 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 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

                                  Page 7 of 9
   C/SCA/7130/2026                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




consent of other co-sharers once possession of the applicant is
established.

12.   At this stage, it would appropriate to refer the decision
of the 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.

14.   It would also be appropriate to refer the decision of the
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."




                                  Page 8 of 9
       C/SCA/7130/2026                                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




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, the present petition is partly
allowed. The respondent is hereby directed to reconnect the
electricity connection to present petitioner as prayed for, as
early as possible preferably within period of 8 (eight) weeks
from the date of receipt of writ of this 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 08/05/2026 18:07:54




                                                         Page 9 of 9