IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction to address disputes regarding unauthorized installations of electrical infrastructure lies with the District Magistrate, not the GRF, as per the provisions of the Electricity Act and related regulations.

JUDGMENT

S.TALAPATRA, J.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioners representing the Tata Power Central Orissa Distribution Limited (TPCODL) have challenged the order dtd. 7/4/2021 delivered in the complaint case being GRF, BBSR, CC No.165/2021, Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

2. By the said order dtd. 7/4/2021, the GRF directed the petitioners to take all necessary steps to remove the distribution transformers having capacity of 500 KVA and 200 KVA from the private plots of the complainant to a convenient place, but without encroaching upon the private plot of the complainant (the opposite party No.1 herein).

3. It has been observed in the said order that, those transformers were installed on the private land of the opposite party No.1 violating the relevant regulation as framed by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC). Hence, the petitioners have either to shift the transformers to any other place within fifteen days or the petitioners have to pay a sum of Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees three thousand) per day on demand, for each day of delay in shifting the said transformers from the complainant's private plot. In addition to that, the petitioners will be held responsible for loss of life or property that may occur due to the delay, because of unsafe mode of installation in the close proximity of the opposite party No.1's premises.

4. At the time of issuance of the notice, by the order dtd. 28/7/2021, it had been ordered that the petitioners would deposit a sum of Rs.20,000.00 (Rupees twenty thousand) towards litigation expenses, within a period of two weeks. It has been further observed that subject to compliance of the above direction, the impugned order shall remain stayed till the next date.

5. It appears from the Registry's note dtd. 28/7/2021, the said amount of Rs.20,000.00 as the litigation cost has been paid by the petitioners by a Demand Draft, a copy of which was filed in this case.

6. Mr. S.C. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the order of the GRF is grossly arbitrary in as much as Sec. -42(5) of the Electricity Act does not authorize it to pass the direction for removing the transformers in question from the land of the opposite party No.1 to the other location. Mr. Dash, learned counsel has quite emphatically submitted that those transformers were installed in the year 2010 and one of which was upgraded from 250 KVA to 500 KVA through the OPTCL under Biju Gramya Jyoti Yojana (BGJY) Scheme in the year 2018, to cater the load growth.

7. Shifting of the said distribution transformers is not feasible, as there is no alternative space available due to the less width of the Road No.13 adjoining to the present location. At the time of installation of those transformers, the opposite party No.1 (the complainant) did not raise any objection.

8. Mr. Dash, learned counsel has taken us to the reply filed by the petitioners before the GRF, which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Para-3 of the said reply, filed before the GRF reads as follows:

"""After the field verification, it is found that there is no space in Road No.13 of Jagannath Nagar to shift the entire electrical installation and there is no complaint made by the complainant while installation of DTR in 2010 as well as in the up-gradation and installation of 100 KVA DTR in the year 2018 to the year 2021 March, as reported by SDO (Eng.) Rasulgarh Sub-Division, BBSR."

9. Mr. Dash, learned counsel has submitted that the GRF has been constituted under Sec. -42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It lacks the power and jurisdiction to entertain the dispute from the general public not relating to the grievances of the electrical consumers. The GRF can exercise the power to adjudicate the dispute between the licensee and the consumer relating to the defects and the deficiencies in rendering the services to the electrical consumers by the licensee.

10. It has been further submitted by Mr. Dash, learned counsel that the OERC, by