Transmission-line realignment may proceed when prescribed safety clearances and procedures are met.

The petitioners owned residential sites in LG Layout, Gunjur Village. They challenged KPTCL’s proposed shifting of the 66 kV EPIP–Chandapura transmission line, alleging that it would be placed close to their properties without notice and could cause damage and inconvenience.

The shifting was sought by respondent No. 5, whose property the existing line crossed.

KPTCL stated that the proposed alignment would maintain approximately six metres’ clearance from the petitioners’ properties; the petitioners obtained an interim stay on further work.

The Court referred to Regulation 63 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulations, 2023, under which the required distance was stated to be 3.0 metres.

It applied the principle that a challenge to transmission-line work cannot succeed merely because the line is near a property, where the authorities follow the applicable procedure and maintain the prescribed safety clearance.

The Court treated proximity and the alleged inconvenience to the petitioners as their principal grievance. KPTCL and respondent No. 5 stated that the revised alignment would be approximately six metres from the petitioners’ properties—greater than the three-metre clearance identified under Regulation 63—and that the shifting had been approved following the required procedure.

Finding no basis in the material to conclude that the respondents’ work departed from the regulations or procedure, the Court held that the petitioners had not established grounds for interference.

All pending interlocutory applications were closed.