Kishore Kumar Kaul vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.
2010 Latest Caselaw 841 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 11437/2009       Date of decision: 15th February, 2010.
       KISHORE KUMAR KAUL                        ..... Petitioner
                          Through     Mr. Jayant Nath, Sr. Adv. with
                                      Mr. B.C. Pandey, Adv.
                   versus
       BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.                 ..... Respondent
                          Through     Mr. I.S. Alag and with J.S.
                                      Lamba, Mr. Rishabh Bhutani
                                      and Mr. R.S. Bisht, Advocates.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
                          ORDER

%

1. The petitioner claims that he is owner of the House No.12, Main

Road, Bhawani Kunj behind D-II, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 on the

basis of general power of attorney, agreement to sell etc.

2. He has filed the present writ petition for shifting of electricity

transformer installed outside his house.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner accepts that

the electricity transfer was installed in 2001 but states that the

respondent, discom is now going to enhance and replace the existing

transformer of 100 KVA with a bigger transformer of 400 KVA capacity.

It is accordingly submitted that this furnishes cause of action to ask for

shifting of the transformer.

4. Counsel for the petitioner was asked to pinpoint and specify the

relevant rule or regulation, which is being violated by the respondent,

W.P.(C) No.11437/2009 Page 1 discom by having a transformer on public land outside his property or

by increasing the capacity of the said transformer.

5. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon Rule 64 (2) of the Indian

Electricity Rules, 1956 (for short the Rules), which reads as follows:-

"(2) The following provisions shall be observed where energy at high or extra-high voltage is supplied, converted, transformed or used:

(a)(i) Clearances as per Indian Standards Code shall be provided for electrical apparatus so that sufficient space is available for easy operation and maintenance without any hazard to the operating and maintenance personnel working near the equipment and for ensuring adequate ventilation.

(ii) The following minimum safety working clearance shall be maintained for the bare conductors or live ports or any apparatus in outdoor sub- stations excluding overhead lines of HV and EHV installations.

     High system Voltage (kv)    Safety working clearance
                                 (meters)
     12                                           2.6
     13                                           2.8
     72.5                                         3.1
     145                                          3.7
     146                                          4.3
     146                                          6.4
     148                                          10.3

               Notes:
               (3) "Safety Working Clearance" is the



W.P.(C) No.11437/2009                                                 Page 2
                minimum clearance to be maintained in
               air between the live part of the
               equipment on one hand and earth or
               another piece of the equipment or

conductor or which it is necessary to carry out the work, in the other."

6. The aforesaid Rule prescribes minimum safety clearances, which

have to be maintained for bare conductors or live ports or any

apparatus in sub-stations. Transformer is not a sub-station. The term

"safety working clearance" has been defined to mean minimum

clearance between the earth or other equipment installed. There should

be sufficient space to carry out work i.e. repair etc. It is not possible to

accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the term

"earth" will mean any permanent structure attached to earth or wall of

the petitioner's house in the present case. The term "earth" in common

parlance will mean the ground level. In fact the Rule 2 (q) of the Rules

specifically defines the terms "earth in" or "connected to earth". Thus

the Rules draw a distinction between the said terms and the word

"earth". The relevant portion of the Rule 64(2) quoted above uses the

term "earth" and not the term "earth in" or "connected with earth".

7. Counsel for the respondent, discom has drawn my attention to

Rule 79 of the Rules, which specifically deals with clearances from

W.P.(C) No.11437/2009 Page 3 buildings of low and medium voltage line and services lines. The said

Rule is not applicable as it deals with minimum norms which have to be

followed in case of overhead lines, which are adjacent to or near any

building.

8. The transformer in question admittedly has been in existence

since 2001 and is in operation since then. There have been no untoward

incident or problem with the said transformer for the last 9 years. The

necessity and need to have a transformer cannot be denied. Shifting will

lead to protest and objection from others. It is noted that the colony in

question is an unauthorized colony, which is slated for regularization.

The petitioner has purchased his house in an unauthorized colony on

power of attorney basis. Thus prayer for removal of the transfer is

rejected.

9. The respondent, discom is bound to comply with safety norms as

prescribed in the relevant enactments, rules and regulations. They have

to ensure that no harm and damage is caused to the property of the

petitioner.

10. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon observations made in

paragraph 66 of the judgment in Association of Victims of Uphar

Tragedy and Other Vs. Union of India 2003 III AD Delhi 321 and has also

W.P.(C) No.11437/2009 Page 4 made reference to the photographs enclosed with the writ petition.

Paragraph 66 in the case of Association of Victims of Uphar Tragedy

(supra) records that a transformer before installation requires

inspection and approval of the Electrical Inspector. It is further

submitted that it is the duty of the respondent, discom to ensure that

the transformer is not defective and in case they fail in their duty, they

will be guilty of negligence. In this connection, counsel for the petitioner

relies upon Rule 63 (3) of the Rules, which reads as under:-

"(3) The owner of any high or extra-high voltage installation who makes any additions or alternations to his installation shall not connect to the supply his apparatus or electric supply lines, comprising the said alterations or additions unless and until such alterations or additions have been approved in writing by the Inspector."

11. The respondent will ensure that they comply with the Rule 63(3)

of the Rules. The Electrical Inspector will be entitled to examine and go

into the question whether the installation of the transformer of the

higher capacity at the said location poses any safety hazard and will be

contrary to the provisions of the enactments, rules and regulations.

12. It is stated by the respondent-discom that the photographs

annexed with the writ petition were taken at the time when the said

W.P.(C) No.11437/2009 Page 5 respondent had started process of installation of new transformer and

therefore cables were cut etc.

13. It is accordingly directed that the new transformer will not be

activated till permission is obtained from the Electrical Inspector in

terms of the Rule 63(3) of the Rules.

14. Counsel for the respondent states that the transformer in

question will be inspected and necessary remedial steps will be taken

within 30 days to remove the bare and loose electrical wires/cables.

15. He further states that they will ensure that the transformer does not pose any safety risk or danger to the property of the petitioner. It is for the respondent, discom to ensure that the petitioner or any third person does not suffer because of the installation of the transformer at the said location or because of loose/open/cut cables. The respondent, discom will be held responsible in case they do not act as per Rules or are negligent and any incident takes place.

The interim order stands vacated and modified to the extent indicated above and the parties will be governed by the order passed today.

The writ petition is disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

         FEBRUARY 15, 2010
         NA




W.P.(C) No.11437/2009                                               Page 6