Gujarat High Court
Nirajkumar Diwanchand Dawar vs Deputy Engineer - Ugvcl on 9 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6630/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6630 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NIRAJKUMAR DIWANCHAND DAWAR
Versus
DEPUTY ENGINEER - UGVCL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIVEK V BHAMARE(6710) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AS ASTHAVADI(3698) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 09/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents. With the consent of both the parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.
2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Gujarat Industrial Development Act seeking following reliefs:
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:01:02 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6630/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined "(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ in such nature and quash and set-aside the impugned communication Dtd: 09.12.2013 bearing No. Chhatral/B/Legal/2013 issued by respondent No. 1 and further be pleased to direct respondent No.1 & 2 to issue "No Due Certificate in favor of petitioner i.e M/s Shree Muni Industries, Having Registered office At: Plot No. 3070, G.I.D.C Estate, Phase III, Chhatral, Ta. Kalol;
(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased direct respondent No.1 & 2 to issue "No Due Certificate" in favor of petitioner i.e M/s Shree Muni Industries, Having Registered office At: Plot No. 3070, G.I.D.C Estate, Phase III, Chhatral, Ta. Kalol;
(D) An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of para (C) above may kindly be granted;
(E) Any other further relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case may be granted."
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the present petitioner is the auction purchaser of Plot No. 3070, G.I.D.C Estate, Phase III, Chhatral, Ta. Kalol which was previously owned by M/s Ambica Plastic Industries. That, sale deed dated 26.02.1998 was executed in favour of present petitioner and the same was registered before Sub-Registrar, Kalol on 31.03.1998 and w.e.f 14.12.2011, the Plot No. 3070, G.I.D.C Estate, Phase III, Chhatral, Ta. Kalol was transferred in the name of present petitioner i.e. M/s Shree Muni Industries Proprietor Nirajkumar Diwanchand Dawar. That, the petitioner intended to dispose off the aforementioned property and therefore, on 29.11.2013 he Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:01:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6630/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined approached respondent No.1 with a request to issue "No Due Certificate" for the property however, respondent No.1 vide impugned communication dated 09.12.2013 informed petitioner that UGVCL has created charge of Rs.34,28,856.43 on the said premises i.e. Plot No. 3070, G.I.D.C Estate, Phase III, Chhatral, Ta. Kalol for the reason that vide Service No. 27915/01/363/7 on M/s Ambica Plastic Industries was allotted a power connection on the aforementioned premises & UGVCL has suspended the same connection due to non-payment of dues in July 1994. It was also stated that UGVCL has preferred Civil Suit No. 147 of 1995 before the Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned communication dated 09.12.2013 issued by respondent no.1, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. Mr. Vivek Bhamare, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned action of respondent no. 1 and 2 is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. He has submitted that the present petitioner is an auction purchaser from Gujarat State Financial Corporation (GSFC) and therefore, the dues of past owner i.e. Ambika Plastic Industries cannot be recovered from the present petitioner. He has submitted that the respondent no. 1 and 2 have never objected the sale or informed about the dues to GSFC and hence, the petitioner cannot be Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:01:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6630/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined made sufferer of huge liability of erstwhile owner.
6.1 He has submitted that the dues are corresponding of the year 1994 of that erstwhile owner for such dues there are no provision of law to create a charge on the property of a 3 rd party. He has referred and relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Balvantrai Desai and Ors versus Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd and Ors reported in 2013 (1) GLR 487 wherein the relevant paragraphs no. 21 and 36 read as under:
"21. We, therefore, find that by virtue of a delegated legislation, the Regulatory Commission has not only overstepped the limit of Secs. 50 and 181(2)(x) of the Act, but has also acted in violation of Sec. 56(2) of the Act by giving a scope of making a legally irrecoverable amount provided under the Act as a recoverable one. It is needless to mention that the power of the State Commission to make a regulation must be consistent with the Act and not inconsistent with any part thereof. We, therefore, find that the first part of the provision contained in the amended Regulation 4.1.11 authorizing a licensee to demand the arrears amount of consumer from the subsequent purchaser of the premises as a condition of grant of new electricity connection is violative of the provisions contained in Secs. 43, 50, 56, 126, and 181(2)(x) of the Act
36. On consideration of the entire materials, we, consequently, find that the first part of the Regulation 4.1.11 as amended by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related matters) ( 3 rd Amendment) Regulations, 2010, enabling a licensee to recover the dues of defaulted consumer from the subsequent purchaser of the premises where the supply of electricity was given to the defaulted consumer is ultra vires the provisions of Secs. 43, 50, 56 and 181 of the Electricity Act itself, being inconsistent with those provisions of the Act. We, accordingly, declare the said part of the provision as ultra vires and direct the respondents Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:01:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6630/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined not to give effect to the same. The petition is allowed. Let there be also orders in terms of the remaining prayers made in Paragraph 22(a) of the petition."
6.2 Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Bhamare has urged that the impugned communication issued by respondent no.1 is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the impugned communication issued by respondent no.1. It appears from the records that the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred and relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Balvantrai Desai and Ors versus Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd and Ors reported in 2013 (1) GLR 487 more particularly para no. 21 and 36. It appears that subsequently, the very issue was reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K.C. Ninan Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others reported in 2023 (14) SCC 431 and in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made relevant findings, in paragraph nos. 277 to 289 and reversed the findings recorded by the Full Bench of this Court rendered in the aforementioned decision. Considering the facts of the case and the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:01:02 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6630/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 undefined
8. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. As per the submission of Mr. Bhamare, learned counsel, it is clarified that this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner before the concerned Civil Court wherein the petitioner is/was not a party to the proceedings. In the event of any difficulty, the petitioner may make appropriate application before the concerned Civil Court.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:01:02 IST 2026