A distribution licensee must shift electrical installations when an alternative supply route avoids disturbing another’s premises.

The petitioner alleged that CESC’s electricity meter, electric line, and other electrical installations situated on his premises were being used to supply electricity to the private respondents, his nephew(s).

The petitioner stated that he had initially permitted the installation but, after the relationship deteriorated, requested its removal because CESC personnel and other persons frequently visited the premises for inspection, causing nuisance and disturbance.

CESC submitted that it was willing to shift the installations to premises occupied by the private respondents, subject to an application for a new supply, production of tax or other relevant premises documents, and an application for removal of the existing meter in the private respondent’s name.

The private respondents agreed to bear the shifting charges but disputed the bill of Rs. 2,52,777/- as exorbitant.

The Court found that the petitioner owned the premises and that CESC had identified an alternative route for supplying electricity without disturbing the petitioner’s property.

The Court applied Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which imposes a duty on a distribution licensee to supply electricity to an applicant or consumer in accordance with the statutory requirements.

The Court held that this duty does not extend to maintaining supply through a route that disturbs another person’s premises where an alternative route is available.

It further applied the principle that the distribution licensee may require compliance with necessary statutory and administrative formalities, including submission of premises-related documents, removal or shifting applications, and payment of charges raised in accordance with law.

The petitioner’s ownership of the premises was undisputed, and CESC had identified an alternative method of supplying electricity to the private respondents without using or disturbing the petitioner’s property.

Accordingly, the Court held that CESC could not insist on continuing the existing arrangement merely because the private respondents had not separately requested removal of the meter and line.

At the same time, the Court did not adjudicate the correctness of the Rs. 2,52,777/- bill; it left the financial and procedural aspects to be resolved between CESC and the private respondents in accordance with law.

The private respondents were therefore required to complete all formalities and pay the requisite lawful charges within one month, failing which continued supply through the disputed arrangement could not be maintained.

If the private respondents failed to comply within that period, CESC was permitted to disconnect their electricity supply so that the petitioner would not continue to face disturbance.

The Court clarified that Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 creates a duty to supply electricity but not a duty to supply it by disturbing another person when an alternative route exists.

The petition was disposed of without costs.