M/S Abhiyantri Enterprises Private Ltd. Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:12007-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by SAGRIKA SAGRIKA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2026.03.16 14:35:29 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1101 of 2026

¶6

M/s Abhiyantri Enterprises Private Ltd. Through- Abhishek Sinha S/o S.R. Sinha Regional Office- Fifo 14, 5th Floor Corporate Hub South Block- Surya Treasure Island Mall, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Energy Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Chief Electrical Inspector 2nd Floor B- Block- Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd Through- The Managing Director Vidyut Seva Bhavan Donganiya Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

4 - M/s Nachiketa Power And Steel Pvt. Ltd Through- Nakul Arya Plot No. 35/36/44/45, Silpahari Industrial Area Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

5 - M/s Aviral Traders Through The Proprietor Vikas Sharma C/o Rajendra Kumar Umathe 46, Cluster 11, Kashi Ram Nagar Raipur, (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

2

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate along with Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶19

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶20

13/03/2026

¶21

1 . Heard Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate along with Mr. Abhishek Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State and Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 .

¶22

By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s):

¶23

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 24/11/2025 (Annexure-P/1).

¶24

10.2 That, a command/direction may kindly be issued to set-aside/quash the entire procedure of the mandatory inspection of the said switchyard, and recommence the whole procedure from the beginning, in presence of the executives appointed

¶25

3

¶26

by the Petitioner, ensuring that all the components are installed at the designated spot in accordance with the SLD approved vide orders dated 17/12/2024 (Annexure-P/5 & P/6).

¶27

10.3 That, alternatively a command/direction may kindly be issued to the Respondent no. 1 and 2 to consider and decide the applications / representations filed by the petitioner before them (annexure-P/12 & P/13).

¶28

10.4 Any other relief which may also be deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner along with cost of the petition”

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that, The Appellant entered into an EPC contract with Respondent No. 4 for the design, supply, construction, erection, testing and commissioning of a 132 kV Switchyard at Silpahri, Bilaspur (C.G.) through Purchase Orders dated 17.10.2024 and 04.04.2025. In pursuance of the contract, the Appellant commenced the work, prepared the Single Line Diagram (SLD), and obtained statutory approvals and working permission from the Electrical Inspector. After completing the work up to the stage of commissioning and requesting inspection for provisional charging, Respondent No. 4, without informing the Appellant and in violation of the work orders and permissions issued in the Appellant’s name, engaged a third-party contractor (Respondent No. 5) for energisation of the switchyard and

¶30

4

¶31

submitted documents and test reports prepared by the Appellant as if the work had been carried out by Respondent No. 5. The inspection was conducted in the absence of the Appellant and without obtaining any NOC from it, while bypassing the approved SLD and working permission issued in its favour. Subsequently, permission for charging the switchyard was granted by Respondent No. 2 even though mandatory equipment such as ABT meters supplied by the Appellant had not been installed. The Appellant raised objections and filed representations before the concerned authorities, however no action was taken, compelling the Appellant to file the present petition.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that, the respondent authorities have committed grave illegality and procedural irregularity by ignoring the fact that the Petitioner, being an A-Class licensed EPC contractor, had obtained all statutory approvals and permissions for the construction and commissioning of the 132 kV Switchyard and was duly executing the work in accordance with the contract. The respondents failed to appreciate that the inspection and testing of the switchyard could not legally be conducted in the absence of the Petitioner’s executives and without its knowledge. It is further submitted that the authorities erroneously relied upon an earlier SLD approval granted to a different vendor, despite the fact that a subsequent SLD prepared by the Petitioner had already been approved and the entire procurement and construction were carried out in accordance with the said approved SLD. The impugned charging clearance was granted without cancellation, withdrawal or transfer of

¶33

5

¶34

the statutory approvals issued in favour of the Petitioner and without obtaining any NOC from the Petitioner before engaging Respondent No. 5, thereby completely bypassing the Petitioner’s role under the EPC contract. Moreover, the test reports submitted by Respondent No. 4 and 5 were forged and prepared from copies of the Petitioner’s records as the original documents remain in the possession of the Petitioner and no independent tests were conducted by them. It is further submitted that the inspection and approval for charging were granted despite the non-installation of the mandatory ABT meters, which had already been procured and duly tested by the Petitioner, rendering the entire inspection process arbitrary, irregular and contrary to the established technical and statutory requirements, and causing potential loss and regulatory complications for the electricity authorities.

¶35

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that, the permission for inspection and charging of the 132 kV Switchyard was granted strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and technical regulations after due verification of the documents and test reports submitted by the project proponent. The respondent authorities acted within their jurisdiction and in good faith while processing the application for inspection and energization, and no procedural illegality has been committed on their part. The role of the electrical inspectorate is limited to ensuring compliance with safety standards and technical requirements before granting charging permission, and it does not extend to adjudicating contractual disputes

¶36

6

¶37

between private parties such as the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 regarding the EPC work. It is further submitted that the inspection was conducted based on the records and submissions made before the authorities at the relevant time, and after being satisfied with the compliance of the necessary requirements, the impugned permission was issued. Therefore, the allegations raised by the Petitioner essentially pertain to contractual and commercial disputes with Respondent No. 4 and do not establish any illegality, arbitrariness or mala fide action on the part of the Respondent authorities.

¶38

Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 would submit that the Respondent No. 2, the Chief Electrical Inspector, has acted strictly in accordance with the powers and duties conferred under the relevant electricity laws and safety regulations while granting permission for inspection and charging of the 132 kV Switchyard. The role of Respondent No. 2 is limited to examining whether the installation complies with the prescribed safety standards and technical requirements before permitting energisation, and it does not extend to adjudicating contractual disputes between the EPC contractor and the project owner. The permission for inspection and subsequent charging was granted only after the Respondent authorities were satisfied with the documents, test reports, and submissions placed before them by the concerned parties. It is further submitted that the Electrical Inspectorate acts on the basis of the records and representations submitted before it and cannot be expected to determine inter se disputes between private entities regarding execution of work under the

¶39

7

¶40

contract. Therefore, no illegality, arbitrariness or mala fide can be attributed to Respondent No. 2, and the allegations raised by the Petitioner are misconceived and primarily arise out of a contractual dispute with Respondent No. 4 and 5, for which the present proceedings against the statutory authority are not maintainable.

¶41

We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the material annexed with the petition.

¶42

Upon consideration of the submissions and the material placed on record, it appears that the core dispute raised by the Petitioner primarily pertains to the alleged acts of Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5 in relation to the execution of the EPC contract and the work carried out at the 132 KV Switchyard. The grievances of the Petitioner regarding engagement of a third-party contractor, alleged use of test reports, and issues concerning execution of work essentially arise out of contractual obligations and inter se disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 and 5. Such disputes involve questions of fact and contractual rights which cannot be appropriately adjudicated in the present proceedings. The role of the respondent authorities is confined to ensuring compliance with statutory and technical requirements under the relevant laws, and this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, ordinarily does not interfere in matters arising purely out of contractual disputes between private parties. Therefore, if the Petitioner has any grievance against Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5, it is open for the Petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available under law

¶43

8

¶44

before the competent forum.

¶45