A distribution licensee cannot deny electricity supply for want of consumer-provided Right of Way.

The petitioner owned land and a double-storey house situated at Village Galot, District Shimla, over which an existing single-phase LT electricity line passed, allegedly endangering his life and property.

He requested the HP State Electricity Board to shift the line.

Following a survey, an estimate, and issuance of a Panchayat NOC, the Board laid a new electricity line; however, it neither energized the new line nor removed the old poles and wires.

The Board opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner was required to provide the necessary Right of Way (RoW), and that objections and pending civil litigation concerning the land prevented completion of the work.

The petitioner therefore sought directions to energize the new line and remove the old line passing over his house.

Whether the distribution licensee could refuse or delay energization of the newly laid electricity line on the ground that the petitioner had not provided the requisite RoW.

Whether the Board was obliged to address objections or obstructions to the shifting of the electricity line under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006.

Whether the pending civil litigation and alleged stay justified the Board’s failure to energize the new line and remove the old line passing over the petitioner’s house.

Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 imposes a duty on every distribution licensee to supply electricity to the premises of an owner or occupier upon application and, where required, to provide the necessary electric plant or line.

Section 67 empowers a licensee to lay, alter, repair, or remove electricity lines and authorizes the appropriate Government to frame rules concerning consent, objections, compensation, and removal of obstructions.

Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 permits a licensee to carry out works and lay electricity lines with the prior consent of the owner or occupier; where an objection is raised, the licensee may obtain written permission from the District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police, or another authorized officer.

Although Clause 30 of the Electricity Manual refers to the consumer’s obligation to provide RoW, the Court held that this does not relieve the licensee of its statutory duty to deal with obstructions and provide electricity.

The Court distinguished Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Navin Kumar, (2008) 16 SCC 282, and Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shri Basantibai, (1988) 1 SCC 23, on the facts.

The Court held that Section 43 places the primary obligation to provide electricity on the distribution licensee and does not make the consumer’s ability to independently secure RoW a precondition for supply.

Under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, any objection or obstruction to laying or shifting the line was required to be addressed by the Board by obtaining appropriate administrative assistance from the competent authorities.

Since the new line had already been laid, the remaining steps—energization of that line and removal of the old line—could not be avoided merely by referring generally to pending litigation.

The Board produced no material demonstrating that the operative stay specifically prohibited energization or removal of the old poles and wires.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Board’s reliance on RoW and the pending civil proceedings was insufficient to justify withholding the petitioner’s electricity supply.

The HP State Electricity Board was directed to energize the single-phase LT electricity line laid in Village Galot, as shown in Annexure P-5, and to remove the existing single-phase line passing over the petitioner’s house, preferably within six weeks from the date of judgment.

The petition and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.