Regulatory compliance requires cost coverage for service line adjustments as per applicable Electricity Supply Codes.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, affirming the dismissal of the complaint preferred by the petitioner before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.

2. The petitioner contends that he owns 24 cents of property at Mooverikkara near Kunnathukal, and during Covid-19 period, an electrical service wire was drawn through the middle of his property, without consent. It is further stated that the Board had estimated an amount of Rs.8,050/- for rerouting the service line through Ext.P3 communication. Making the same allegations, the petitioner approached the CGRF, which found by its order dated 20.06.2025, Ext.P6, that the line was already drawn through the property even before the purchase by the petitioner herein and that the estimated amount of Rs.8,050/- for changing the same, was in tune with Regulation 95 of the Kerala State Electricity Supply Code, 2014.

3. Accordingly, the CGRF found that the petitioner has to deposit the required estimated amount for carrying out the shifting work. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved the Electricity Ombudsman, who also found that the petitioner had purchased the property during 2016, whereas the service connection to the neighbour's property was given during 10/1992. It is also stated that the service connection for the connection to Mr.Stephen's house was taken from the post situated at the beginning of the petitioner's boundary, and a weather-proof service line for a single-phase power supply was taken from it. This was also done before the petitioner purchased the property. During November 2024, the petitioner made a request for shifting the post consequent to the widening of the road by the PWD. The licensee then directed the petitioner to remit the estimated amount, which he refused to pay, as his case was that a service line was drawn through the middle of his property without his consent.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Board, which reads as follows.

“4. ln para 2, the contentions raised by the petitioner are incorrect. The service wire passing through the comer of Sri. R. Sujith Chandran's (petitioner's) property was installed many years ago to provide electricity connection to Mr. Stephen's (neighbor) house, bearing consumer number 1146676000718. As per office records, the date of connection was 01/10/1992, and there has been no change in the alignment of the service wire for the last 10 years. The only services carried out in respect of the said connection are "Section-initiated meter change" on 05/12/2021 and "Temporary extension" on 04/03/2022. No other services have been rendered in respect of the said connection. In support of this contention, screenshots of the consumer profile and applicant profile are produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a). It is also submitted that there is no pathway for vehicular entry into the petitioner's property, which is densely vegetated with wild herbs.

5. In response to para 3, it is stated that, In November 2024, road widening work was undertaken on the road in front of the petitioner's property. Pursuant to a request from the PWD authorities for shifting the pole (from which the alleged weatherproof wire is drawn), the pole was shifted to the side of the road after the remittance of the shifting charges by the PWD under the deposit work scheme.

The petitioner's demand was to shift the existing HT/LT pole further along the road so as to move the service wire outside his property, at the expense of PWD funds. This is not technically feasible and would amount to misuse of public funds.”

The above statements are recorded.

5. Given the above, the request of the petitioner to shift the line without paying the estimated amount cannot be accepted, more particularly in view of Regulation 95 o