M/S Abhiyantri Enterprises Private Ltd vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 475 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

M/S Abhiyantri Enterprises Private Ltd vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                1




          Digitally signed
                                                              2026:CGHC:12007-DB
          by SAGRIKA
SAGRIKA AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date:
        2026.03.16
          14:35:29 +0530


                                                                             NAFR

                             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                       WPC No. 1101 of 2026


           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.)
                                                                    ... Petitioner(s)


                                             versus


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


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


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


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


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

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

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

13/03/2026

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.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for the following

relief(s):

"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).

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

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).

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).

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"

3. 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

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.

4. 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

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.

5. 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

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.

6. 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

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.

7. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the material

annexed with the petition.

8. 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

before the competent forum.

9. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out in the present

petition and the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

                      Sd/-                                Sd/-
           (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                   (Ramesh Sinha)
                     Judge                              Chief Justice



sagrika