[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sujith Chandran R vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 20 February, 2026
WP(C) NO. 43933 OF 2025 1 2026:KER:15669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 43933 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SUJITH CHANDRAN R, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O N RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (LATE),
WORKING AS SENIOR ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
SAROVARAM KADAKULAM, PLAMOOTTUKKADA P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695128
BY SUJITH CHANDRAN R,(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PIN - 695004
2 ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KUNNATHUKAL,
PARASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
3 SUMA, AGED 45 YEARS,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL
SECTION, KUNNATHUKAL, PARASALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SRI.AJIT JOY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 20.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 43933 OF 2025 2 2026:KER:15669
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,
WP(C) NO. 43933 OF 2025 3 2026:KER:15669
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.
WP(C) NO. 43933 OF 2025 4 2026:KER:15669
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
WP(C) NO. 43933 OF 2025 5 2026:KER:15669
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 of the Kerala State
Electricity Supply Code, 2014. The petitioner's case that the line was
drawn during Covid period without his consent is not supported by
any material. If the petitioner has a dispute that the line drawn to
give connection to his neighbour was without his consent, his
remedy is to move the Additional District Magistrate under the
provisions of the Telegraph Act. Since the petitioner himself has
made a request for shifting of the line and the Board directed him
to pay the estimated amount, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by
WP(C) NO. 43933 OF 2025 6 2026:KER:15669
the same, as no shifting can be done without making the above
deposit.
Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any
relief to the petitioner and the writ petition is dismissed, without
prejudice to his right to move under the Telegraph Act, if so
advised.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
DMR/-
WP(C) NO. 43933 OF 2025 7 2026:KER:15669
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 43933 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
31.10.2025 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
PROSECUTION, KERALA PERMITTING HIM TO
APPEAR IN PARTY IN PERSON.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
18.11.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.2024.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 23.11.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED
14.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE GRIEVANCE
REDRESSAL FORUM AND THE TRUE COPY OF THE
ORDER DATED 20.06.2025 ISSUED BY
CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM, KSEB
SOUTHERN REGION KOTTARAKKARA.
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
09.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
OMBUDSMAN.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
16.09.2025 OF THE KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN IN APPEAL PETITION
NO. P/048/2025.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPORT OF THIS
CONTENTION SCREENSHOTS OF THE CONSUMER
WP(C) NO. 43933 OF 2025 8 2026:KER:15669
PROFILE AND APPLICANT PROFILE.
Exhibit R1(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE
ESTIMATE.
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
