Daya Ram vs HP State Electricity Board Limited & Ors.

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

By way of present petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main relief(s):

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner is that though petitioner made request to the respondents to shift the Single Phase LT Electricity Line passing over his house situate over Khasra No. 417, 427 and 683/428 in Mohal Galot, Tehsil and District Shimla so that petitioner and his family could live safely and danger to their life and property could be avoided. Though the respondent Board has laid new electricity line but neither has energized the said line, nor removed the old poles, as a result of which the petitioner is suffering.

Quintessential facts, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by respective parties are that petitioner is owner in possession of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 10/43, Khasra No. 422, 425, 426, 427, 429, 4430, 683/428, 684/428, Kita 8, measuring 00-08-00 hectares si-tuate in Village Galot, Tehsil and District Shimla and having his double sto-rey house over Khasra No. 417, 427 and 683/428. As per petitioner a Single Phase LT Electricity Line is passing over the house in question, which is posing threat to lives of petitioner and his family and as such, made request to respondents to shift the electricity line, vide application, Annexure P-2. An estimate was prepared by respondent Board (Annexure P-3) and visits were made by officials of respondents and on 4.9.2021, survey was con-ducted and even NOC has been issued by local Panchayat. As per petition-er, respondents have completed shifting work of electricity line but line has not been energized, as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying for the reliefs as have been reproduced herein above.

Pursuant to notices issued in the instant petition, respondent Board has filed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed, rather an attempt is being made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that despite there being repeated communications, petitioner has not been able to remove hindrances in laying electricity wires. It is averred in the reply that Right of Way (RoW) is to be provided by the petitioner. It is further averred in the reply that though, after receipt of appli-cation as well as request made, petitioner has failed to provide Right of Way (RoW) through his plot/land, for shifting distribution line. It is further stated that on 14.2.2000 a civil suit was filed by one Chet Ram in which stay was granted and though said civil suit has been disposed of but thereafter, Rat-tan Lal son of Chet Ram has been making various representations, for not shifting the electricity line. It is further the case of the respondents that a regular second appeal has been filed by Rattan Lal and on 4.1.2014, judg-ment and decree dated 31.10.2012 passed by learned District Judge has been stayed

Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Ms. Manisha Kumari and Ms. Harshita Dogra, Advocates, appearing for the res-pondent Board, while inviting attention of this Court to the Electricity Manual submits that it is duty of the consumer to provide Right of Way (RoW), through or over any land under his/her control and jurisdiction, as may be required by the HPSEBL in connection with provision or maintenance of a service line to the premises of the consumer and subject to the provisions of Section 43 of the Act to the premises of any other consumer in accordance with Rules framed by the State Government. She also placed reliance upon certain judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court to state that it is duty of the consumer to cooperate with Electricity Board for establishment of any infrastructure or power lines including Right of Way (RoW).

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that though electricity line has been shifted but same has not been energized and civil litigation has been filed qua the suit land, in which stay has been granted by this Court in regular second appeal, but having carefully perused S.43 of the Electricity Act, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that it is duty of Electricity Board being the licensee to give supply of electricity on an application made by owner of premises within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of application.

At this stage, it would be apt to take note of S.43 of the Act, which reads as under:

Careful perusal of aforesaid provision of law though specifically talks about duty of Electricity Board to provide electricity connection but it no-where suggests that in that regard, Right of Way (RoW), if any, is to be pro-vided to the applicant. It is also apt to take note of S.67 of Act, which reads as under:

By way of aforesaid provision, an appropriate Government is empo-wered to make rules to give effect to provisions contained under Electricity Act. In terms of aforesaid provisions of law, Central Government has framed rules namely Works of Licence Rules, 2006. S.3 of afore Rules, deals with duty to be carried out by licensee, which reads as under:

As per aforesaid provision of law, it is duty of licensee to carry out works, lay down or place any electricity supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, wherever or whereunder any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land.

First proviso to rule provides that in case owner, occupier or building/ land raises an objection in respect of work to be carried out by licensee, li-censee shall obtain permission in writing from District Magistrate or Com-missioner of Police or other officer authorized by State Government for car-rying out the work.

Though, Ms. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Board, vehemently argued that it is the duty of the petitioner to provide Right of Way (RoW) and to ensure that no objection is raised by person, whose land may come under electricity line but having carefully perused aforesaid rule, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Ms. Sharma, rather is of the view that obstruction, if any, caused by any person in laying of electricity line on the application made by an individual, is to be removed by the licensee i.e. electricity board. Specific provision has been made in the Rules as provided herein above, to deal with situation where objections are raised qua laying of electricity line. In the event of objection being raised, licencee can always approach District Magistrate as well as Commissioner of Police so that ne-cessary assistance is provided to the licensee for execution of work on the spot, but certainly, electricity connection cannot be denied to an individual for the reason that he has not been able to provide Right of Way (RoW).

Though, clause 30 of Electricity Manual, suggests that consumer will provide to the HPSEBL, Right of Way (RoW) in, through or over any land under his/her control and jurisdiction as required by HPSEBL in connection with provision or maintenance of a service line to the premises of the con-sumer and subject to provision of S.67 of the Act, whereunder Works Li-cence Rules, 2006 have been made. Rule 3 of afore Rules, castes duty upon licencee Board to get obstruction, if any, caused by land owners, re-moved.

There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. & Ors. (2017) 5 SCC 143, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Navin Kumar & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 282 and Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shri Basantibai (1988) 1 SCC 23 , which have been pressed into service by Ms. Sharma, but having perused aforesaid judgments, this court finds that applicant is only required to pro-vide necessary assistance but certainly, in terms of rules, as discussed herein above, necessary action qua removal of obstruction, if any, is re-quired to be taken by licensee. Hence, aforesaid judgments have no appli-cability in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

Though, an objection has been taken by the respondents in their re-ply, that there is stay operating qua suit land, due to which the electricity line now laid, could not be energized, however, this Court is not impressed with aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, firstly, new electricity line stands laid and only work remains to be done is energizing the line and re-moving the old poles, and no document, worth name has been placed on record to show that there is any stay on energizing the electricity line and removing old poles. Otherwise also, it is duty of the licensee i.e. the Board to provide electricity connection to the premises of a consumer.

Consequently, this court finds merit in the petition and same is al-lowed. Respondent Board is directed to energies the Single Phase LT Elec-tricity Line laid by respondents in Village Galot as shown in Annexure P-5 and to remove old existing single phase electricity line passing over the house of petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today.

The petition stands disposed of in afore terms, alongwith all pending applications.