Point of Law: Power and Electricity – Supply of electricity – Delay for giving electric connection - Duty to supply on request - Every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply.

JUDGMENT :

To light up a tiny bulb in his tiny house Sainuddeen had to walk from pole to pole. An order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) in his favour could not dispel the darkness at his home and the State Electricity Regulatory Commission mulcted two officers of the Board for delay in giving electricity connection and thus these two officers are before this Court.

2. Sri. P. Sainuddeen, the 3rd respondent applied for electric connection to his newly built house of 300 square feet extent before the Assistant Engineer, Electric Section, Edarikkode, (hereinafter referred to as 'AE' for brivity) vide his application dated 20.05.2013. The AE, by Ext.P1 letter dated 28.05.2013, informed the 3rd respondent that the house is constructed without keeping the minimum distance from the Low Tension electric line (L.T. line) and that only after shifting the electric line, the electric connection can be given. Aggrieved by the said stand of the AE and complaining of the delay in granting electric connection, the 3rd respondent filed Ext. P2 complaint under Section 43 (3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Electricity Act' for short) before the CGRF constituted under the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005 (herein after referred to as 'Regulations 2005' for brevity).

3. As evident from Ext. P3 minutes of hearing, the CGRF (North), Kozhikode directed the parties to inspect the property jointly and prepare a sketch showing feasible line. The minutes also shows the statement made by the Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) before the CGRF wherein it is stated by the AEE that maintenance of statutory clearance of 2.7 meters between L.T. line and the 3rd respondent's house was necessary and the existing distance is only 30 cms. After hearing the parties, the CGRF (North), Kozhikode by Ext.P4 order dated 26.11.2013, directed the AEE and the AE; the writ petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, to shift the LT line as per the plan and estimate submitted by the AEE and AE after collecting the estimate amount from the 3rd respondent and to give electric connection to the 3rd respondent within 21 days of receipt of the said order.

4. After the expiry of the period stipulated in the order of CGRF, the 3rd respondent filed Ext.P11 petition dated 01.01.2014 before the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Regulatory Commission), the additional 7th respondent, complaining that the AEE and AE did not comply with Ext.P4 order of the CGRF, in spite of remitting the estimate amount by the 3rd respondent.

5. The AE by Ext. P10 letter dated 10.01.2014 informed the 3rd respondent that electric connection can be granted only on receiving consent from the 4th respondent, the adjacent land owner in whose premises a stay wire has to be planted for shifting the line.

6. The Regulatory Commission called for report from the AEE and on receipt of report, issued Ext.P12 letter dated 11.02.2014 to the AE informing that raising the issue of "consent" from the adjacent property owners at the time of implementation of CGRF order cannot be admitted and directed to initiate steps for shifting the line immediately after getting orders from the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), if necessary.

7. The AEE submitted Ext. P13 petition dated 22.2.2014 under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the ADM for orders to shift the electric line going across the house of the 3rd respondent.

8. Since Ext.P4 order dated 26.11.2013 of the CGRF was not complied with even after lapse of four months, the Regulatory Commission issued show cause notice on 07.04.2014 to the AEE and AE to explain why action under Section 142 of the Electricity Act should not be initiated against them. They submitted their explanation wherein they have stated that for supplying electricity to the 3rd respondent, L.T. line has to be shifted and the premises of the third