[2025:RJ-JP:40341] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7830/2025 The Zonal Chief Engineer, (Jaipur Zone), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Near Ram Mandir, Bani Park, Jaipur. 302016. Through Executive Engineer (Dd-1) JPD, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam, Old Power House, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sh Rajendra Prasad Gupta Son Of Sh. Kedar Mal Gupta, Resident Of Badanpura, Jaitpura, District Jaipur (Raj)., Pin Code - 303704 2. Electricity Ombudsman Rajasthan, Jaipur, Vidyut Viniyamak Bhawan Sahakar Marg, Near State Motor Garage, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ishan Kumawat For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/07/2025 1. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by learned Electricity Ombudsman Rajasthan Jaipur in Case No.EOR-688/2025 whereby the learned Ombudsman disposed of the representation filed by the complainant and directed the petitioner to implement partially the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Zonal Level CGRF, Jaipur by allowing 50% rebate in the estimated cost Rs.2,16,612/-. 2. The primary ground for challenge advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the burden of proving the [2025:RJ-JP:40341] (2 of 4) [CW-7830/2025] "hazardous" nature of the 11KV lines lay squarely on the respondent, and since no such specific evidence was led, the Ombudsman's order is perverse and deserves to be set aside. The petitioner argues that without a factual finding, based on expert evidence, that these lines are hazardous, their obligation to contribute to the cost is not triggered. Moreover, it is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent failed to submit the required affidavit on time, stating that no construction will be done on the land where the underground high tension lines are passing through. Counsel submits that this absolves them of any liability that the respondent has alleged them to have. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. This Court finds the petitioner's argument to be fundamentally flawed and without substance. The contention that the respondent was required to furnish proof of the hazardous nature of an 11KV high-tension line is not only legally unsound but also runs contrary to commonsense and established principles of public safety. The danger inherent in high-voltage electricity lines is not a matter of a factual dispute that requires an inquiry or expert testimony. It is a widely recognised and largely accepted risk. The existence of statutory requirements under the Electricity Act, the Indian Electricity Rules, and other pertinent norms requiring special safety approvals and zones for such lines demonstrates their inherent risk. An 11KV line, by its nature and voltage, has a fatal potential. Its ability to cause electrocution, fire, and broad destruction to life and property is an obvious truth, not a thesis that requires evidence. [2025:RJ-JP:40341] (3 of 4) [CW-7830/2025] To compel a citizen to submit scientific or expert verification of this evident reality would be an unjust and absurd condition, imposing an impossible load on an individual and undermining the aim of a fair and accessible grievance redressal system. Learned Ombudsman correctly understood and proceeded on this fundamental premise. The order is not perverse, nay just and pragmatic recognition of a clear and present danger. 4. Furthermore, this Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and supervisory, not appellate. The power is to be exercised only in cases of grave and manifest error of law or to correct a perverse or arbitrary order that has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. It is not within the scope of this jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence or substitute the Court's own findings of fact for those of the lower tribunal. In the present case, the Ombudsman’s order is neither illegal nor perverse. It is a fair and equitable decision that rightly places a shared responsibility on the public utility, which is the custodian of a dangerous instrumentality, and the private citizen, whose safety and property are at risk. The decision to direct a 50% contribution from JVVNL is a balanced exercise of discretion, aimed at resolving a dispute in a manner that protects the public interest while providing a remedy to the aggrieved party. The petitioner's attempt to elevate a factual dispute into a legal challenge under the guise of "burden of proof" is misplaced and cannot be sustained. The case was correctly decided on its specific facts and circumstances, and there is no illegality or perversity that warrants the extraordinary intervention of this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:40341] (4 of 4) [CW-7830/2025] 5. For these reasons, the petition is entirely devoid of merit. The order of the learned Ombudsman is found to be just, proper, and requires no interference from this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /50