The Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman has dismissed an appeal filed by a consumer seeking an extension of the temporary disconnection of his low-tension (LT) cottage industry electricity service connection. In its final order issued on June 29, 2026, the Ombudsman held that the existing electricity board rules and regulations do not provide any provision for extending a temporary disconnection beyond the approved period.
The case involved Thiru J. Shanmuga Sundaram of Cauvery Street in Bhavani. He had applied for the temporary dismantling of his electricity service connection after the Bhavani Municipality issued a demolition notice declaring his building unsafe and in a dilapidated condition. Based on his request, the electricity department approved a one-year temporary disconnection for his cottage industry service connection from August 30, 2024.
During the implementation of the temporary disconnection, the electricity utility mistakenly collected only ₹120 as advance current consumption charges instead of the required ₹4,320. Because of this incorrect collection, the billing software automatically generated reconnection charges on September 3, 2024, even though the approved one-year disconnection period had not ended. Later, on August 13, 2025, Sundaram submitted a request seeking another one-year extension of the temporary disconnection.
The Gobi Electricity Distribution Circle (EDC) rejected the request, stating that there was no rule allowing such an extension. Sundaram then approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF). On January 7, 2026, the CGRF also ruled against him. The Forum observed that the board’s regulations do not contain any provision for extending a temporary disconnection. It directed the electricity utility to complete the account closure process after issuing proper notice and to adjust any outstanding dues against the consumer’s previous payments.
Unhappy with the decision, Sundaram filed Appeal Petition No. 08 of 2026 before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman. In his appeal, he made several allegations against local electricity officials. He accused them of fraud, dishonesty, and procedural mistakes, including deleting back-dated billing entries and improperly handling reconnection records. He also sought compensation of ₹4,200, claiming that he had suffered mental agony and harassment due to the actions of the officials.
The electricity department denied the allegations and argued that all actions had been taken in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. The matter was heard through a video conference on June 17, 2026.
After examining the records and hearing both sides, Electricity Ombudsman Tmt. K. Indirani concluded that neither the consumer nor the applicable regulations provided any legal basis for granting an extension of the temporary disconnection period. The Ombudsman observed that the authority cannot issue directions based only on equitable grounds when no enabling provision exists in the regulations.
Finding no legal error or procedural flaw in the CGRF’s earlier order, the Ombudsman upheld the Forum’s decision. Since the main request for extending the temporary disconnection could not be granted under the existing rules, the claim for compensation was also rejected. The appeal was dismissed, and the case was officially closed without any order on costs.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
