AAM AADMI PARTY’S REJOINDER TO SHIELA DIKSHIT GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO ELECTRICITY SCAM:

February 3, 2013

1.            The Delhi Govt did not allow the draft tariff order to be converted in to tariff order few hours before it was to be issued on5th May 2010. Even Delhi HC came down very heavily of Shiela Dixit Govt . Relevant portion of the HC judgment is reproduced below-

“On a close scrutiny of the aforesaid directions, it is clear as noon day that there has been an order of prohibition to the Commission not to pass the tariff order. Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel for the respondent would contend that it was issued keeping in view the public interest. The same is not discernible. It is neither evident nor demonstrable. It was an unwarranted interdiction. It is understandable that the State Government could have suggested some kind of a matter relating to policy having nexus with public interest, but unfortunately that is not so. By the impugned communication contained in Annexure P-7, the State Government could not have prevented the Commission from exercising its statutory powers. In any event, under Section 108, the State Government could have only to be a subterfuge, in fact, totally divorced from the arena of public interest. Quite apart from that the communication is in the form of injunction, which we are absolutely indubitable, the State Government cannot issue. This interdiction is decidedly beyond the scope of language employed in Section 108 of the 2003 Act and, in fact, contrary to the legislative intent. Thus, we are disposed to think that the submissions canvassed by learned Attorney General deserve acceptation and, accordingly, we hold that the communication of the present nature made by the State Government is absolutely unjustified, unwarranted and untenable and, accordingly, the same stands quashed

We will be failing in our duty if we do not express our views on the conduct of the distribution companies. A distribution company is not an illiterate litigant who seeks redressal of his grievances at any stage and before whichever forum. They are guided by their law officers and are expected to know how to conduct themselves. The manner in which they submitted the representation to the State Government requiring its interference at a stage when the regulatory body was proceeding with the determination was totally unwarranted. They should have been well advised not to curb the determination process by the regulatory Commission. They should have understood the status of the regulatory commission in proper perspective. The State Government, as we have already held, and repeat at the cost of repetition, had traveled beyond its power by issuing a direction purported to have been so done in exercise of power under Section 108 of the 2003 Act. The State Government totally misdirected itself at the instance of the distribution companies. The distribution companies can very well contend that they can afford to make an erroneous representation or bring something which is not within the parameters of the statute to the State Government, yet, it is obligatory on the part of the State Government to look into the parameters of law and pass appropriate directions. But, a pregnant one, we can well appreciate if a layman such a path but the companies which are run by people who are qualified and educated and assisted by their own legal officers should not have taken recourse to such a path. It is nothing but subterfuge. It is against the national interest. The prudence does not countenance it. The law does not give sanction to it. It is, in a way, an innovative game play with the law. We are inclined to think that the companies harboured the notion they are children who can approach the Government like going to a laboratory to play a game of minor experimental science. It is absolutely impermissible and we, without any reservation, express our displeasure. We hope and trust that the distribution companies shall behave with responsibility, maturity and intellectual honesty keeping in mind the interest of the citizens and not to be obsessed with their own interest in singularity ostracizing statutory paradigms of law. This is a caution for the future. We expect more sensibility from them, as they cannot afford to suffer from intellectual paraplegia”.

2.            In so far as issue of  zero recovery from 10% consumers is  concerned, the commission itself has pointed out these discrepancies. The core issue why no action was taken against Discom on the issue of fudging of  books by the commission.

3.            If the government is ready for the CAG audit, then it should write to CAG immediately so that CAG audit of discoms can commence .

4.            BSES itself has admitted to selling the surplus power to its sister company i.e RETL @Rs.1.48/unit and buying it from them atRs.2.72/unit. These are admitted facts by the company. Is it fair trade practice ?

5.            CERC reports clearly point out that power stations were ready but discoms claimed that power stations were not ready. DERC under Mr. Sudhakar merely accepted the assertions of discoms. Was any independent audit carried out by DERC to find out the truth about surplus power with discoms ? The fudging of facts pertaining to surplus power (besides financial bungling by BSES companies)  makes it all the more necessary for independent audit by CAG.