Writ petition challenging statutory approval dismissed due to contractual dispute between private parties.

M/s Abhiyantri Enterprises Private Ltd. (Petitioner), an A-Class licensed EPC contractor, entered into a contract with Respondent No. 4 (M/s Nachiketa Power And Steel Pvt. Ltd.) for the design, supply, construction, erection, testing, and commissioning of a 132 kV Switchyard at Silpahri, Bilaspur

The Petitioner prepared the Single Line Diagram (SLD) and obtained statutory approvals and working permission from the Electrical Inspector

After completing the work up to the commissioning stage, Respondent No. 4, without informing the Petitioner and in violation of work orders, engaged Respondent No. 5 (M/s Aviral Traders), a third-party contractor, for energisation of the switchyard

Respondent No. 4 submitted documents and test reports prepared by the Petitioner as if the work had been carried out by Respondent No. 5

The inspection was conducted in the absence of the Petitioner and without obtaining any NOC from it, bypassing the approved SLD and working permission issued in its favour

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 (Chief Electrical Inspector) granted permission for charging the switchyard despite the non-installation of mandatory ABT meters supplied by the Petitioner

The Petitioner filed objections and representations, but no action was taken, leading to the filing of the present writ petition

Whether the impugned order dated 24/11/2025 granting permission for charging the switchyard should be set aside/quashed

Whether the entire procedure of mandatory inspection of the switchyard should be set aside/quashed, and the procedure recommenced in the presence of the Petitioner's executives, ensuring components are installed according to the approved SLD

Whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 should be directed to consider and decide the applications/representations filed by the Petitioner

Whether the disputes raised by the Petitioner constitute a contractual dispute between private parties that cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition against statutory authorities

The court emphasized that its writ jurisdiction is ordinarily constrained to matters of statutory and technical compliance by respondent authorities and does not extend to adjudicating contractual disputes between private parties

The role of the Electrical Inspectorate (Respondent No. 2) is limited to examining compliance with prescribed safety standards and technical requirements before permitting energization, and it does not adjudicate contractual disputes between EPC contractors and project owners

The court found that the Petitioner's core grievances primarily stemmed from alleged acts of Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5 concerning the execution of the EPC contract and work at the switchyard

The issues regarding the engagement of a third-party contractor, alleged use of test reports, and non-installation of ABT meters were deemed to arise out of contractual obligations and inter se disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5

Such disputes involved questions of fact and contractual rights, which the court determined could not be appropriately adjudicated in writ proceedings

The court noted that the respondent authorities' role was confined to ensuring compliance with statutory and technical requirements, and they had acted within their jurisdiction

Therefore, the court concluded that the allegations against the statutory authorities did not establish illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide action on their part, but rather pertained to a contractual dispute

The court concluded that the core dispute was contractual in nature between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, involving questions of fact and contractual rights that could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings

The court clarified that if the Petitioner had grievances against Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, it was open to them to pursue appropriate remedies under the law before a competent forum