Appeal No. 30 of 2007

Between

Sri. G.Kiran Kumar

Partner of M/s. Venkateswara Dalls

D.No. 4-1-401; Upstairs, Lakshmi Sai Nagar,

Nawabpet, Nellore … Appellant

And

1. Superintending Engineer/Operation/APSPDCL/Nellore

2. Divisional Engineer/Operation/ APSPDCL/Nellore

3. Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/ D-2/APSPDCL/Nellore

4. Assistant Engineer / Store House pet / Nellore

… Respondents

The appeal / representation dated 16.08.2007 (received on 20.08.2007) of the appellant has come up for settlement before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 04.02.2008 in the presence of Appellant Sri. G.Kiran Kumar and the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following:

A W A R D

By an order dated 30.07.2007 in C.G.No.19/2007-08 – Nellore Circle, the Forum for redressal of consumers grievance of APSPDCL disposed the complaint filed before it stating that it is not fair to the Forum to examine the case as it will become sub-judice and hence the complainant is directed to file a fresh complaint after the outcome of the Writ Petition No. 27735 of 2005 which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court.

2. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant/complainant filed a representation dated 16.08.2007 to the Vidyut Ombudsman narrating all facts about the complainant approaching the concerned authorities of the department and filing of the complaint before the Forum. It is also stated in the appeal that no counter was filed by Assistant Engineer in the Writ Petition filed by Sri R.Sudhakar Rao before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 27.12.2005. It is also stated in the appeal that even though no stay was granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh the respondents are causing inconvenience to the appellant in not shifting the poles as requested by the appellant by receiving the estimate amount from the appellant for such shifting of the line. Hence, requested to do justice in the matter.

3. On 04.02.2008, during the hearing in the matter at the office of S.E.Nellore the Vidyut Ombudsman endeavoured to promote settlement by mutual consent between the parties concerned as required under section 8(1)(c) and clause 11 of APERC (Establishment of Forum and Vidyut Ombudsman for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers) Regulation, 2004 (1 of 2004). As there was no possibility to settle the matter by mutual consent between the parties the Vidyut Ombudsman proceeded to hear the matter on merits.

4. Heard the appellant and respondents present. Perused the record which is available with the Vidyut Ombudsman.

5. The case of the appellant/complainant is that he owned a land about 74 cents in survey no. 387 adjacent to his dall mill. Without the knowledge of the appellant, the respondents have laid HT line through his land by shifting HT line. The appellant objected for the same and requested the Assistant Engineer, Nellore vide his letter dated 18.06.2005 and 27.06.2005 to remove the poles and shift the line as existed previously. But no action was taken by the Assistant Engineer, Nellore. Hence the complainant represented the same to Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Nellore and Divisional Engineer, Operations, Nellore through letter dated 20.07.2005, but in vain. Thereafter the complainant represented the matter to the District Collector, Nellore on 10.10.2005 who referred the matter to the Superintending Engineer, Operations, Nellore. Based on the said representation, the Superintending Engineer, Operations, Nellore agreed to shift the line on payment of necessary shifting charges. On 23.11.2005, the appellant has given his consent to pay shifting charges. The Divisional Engineer, Operations, Nellore has sanctioned estimate for Rs.7755/- vide Memo No. 1158 dated 23.12.2005, but the Assistant Engineer, Nellore denied to shift the line as the writ petition is pending in Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

6. It is not in dispute about Sri R.Sudhakar Rao and Sri R.V.Subba Rao filing W.P No.27735/05 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to stop reshifting of the line by impleading concerned officers, i.e., Superintending Engineer, Divisional Engineer, Assistant Divisional Engineer. It is the case of the appellant that after he came to know about filing of W.P by Sri R.Sudhakar Rao before the High court, the appellant got filed petition in the said W.P. to implead him as 4^th respondent. Admittedly the W.P.No.27735/05 filed by Sri R.Sudhakar Rao and another is pending before the Hon’ble High Court.

7. While complaint is pending with the Forum, the Divisional Engineer addressed a letter on 21.04.2007 to the Standing Legal Advisor for APTransco. On which the Standing Legal Advisor for APTransco gave a reply through letter dated 23.04.2007 to the Divisional Engineer, Operations, Nellore. Through the said letter the Standing Legal Advisor opined that at this juncture it is not advisable to shift the present 11 K.V.line, which is subject to outcome of the writ petition.

8. The Forum below after taking into consideration all the contents made in the complaint and also the written statements filed by the respondents has come to a conclusion that it is not fair on the part of Forum to examine the case as it will become subjudice and complainant is advised to file fresh complaint after the outcome of the W.P No. 27735/05.

9. Even as per the submissions made by the appellant and also the respondents, the W.P.No. 27735/05 is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court for disposal. It is the submission of the appellant that after filing the appeal before the Vidyut Ombudsman, the respondents filed counter in the W.P. before the Hon’ble High Court. It is the submission of the appellant that the High Court dismissed W.P.M.P No. 35592/2005, which was filed seeking interim directions not to shift the line. Even the respondents admitted that the said miscellaneous petition was dismissed by the High Court.

10. As the High Court has not granted stay of further proceedings, the contention of the appellant is that the respondents can remove the poles and reshift the line as they existed previously. Even though it is an admitted fact that there is no bar as such on the respondent(s) concerned to remove the poles and reshift the line as per the sanctioned estimate of R-2, it appears that the respondents are being guided by the opinion of their Standing Legal Advisor that it is not advisable to go ahead with the work to shift the line in view of pendency of writ petition before Hon’ble High Court.

11. In view of the above, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the order of the Forum below. As the matter is seized by the highest court in the State, it is desirable that the appellant pursues the same to its logical conclusion and take suitable steps depending on the outcome of the writ petition.

12. Accordingly, the representation (appeal) is disposed off.

This order is corrected and signed on 12^th day of February, 2008.