Shimla, October 21
The domestic power consumers will have to pay 25 to 40 per cent more from this month because of the failure of the government to release subsidy to the state electricity board.
The State Electricity Regulatory Commission has taken a serious view of the failure of the board to comply with its tariff order passed on July 5, 2004, as per which the domestic consumers were to be billed at the rates approved (unsubsidised rates) by it in case the government failed to pay subsidy to it as agreed. The total amount of subsidy worked out to Rs 3.26 crore per month. As per the order of the commission, the government was required to open a revolving letter of credit in favour of the board for the purpose.
However, so far the letter of credit has not been opened and the board has not received a penny. Under the Electricity Act 2003, the board can only charge the tariffs approved by the commission for various categories of consumers.
The commission ordered that notwithstanding the review petition filed by the state government , the electricity bills for October be issued on the basis of the tariff determined by it and should also include arrears on account of non-payment of subsidy from July 5, 2004, or even earlier if the subsidy had not been received for the period. Credit could be given to the consumers in the subsequent bills if and when the subsidy amount was received from the government.
It also made it clear that non-compliance of the order could attract penal action under Section 142 and 146 of the Act.
The commission has lamented that the Chief Secretary to the government was also the Chairperson of the board. In such a scenario, the commission observed, better support from the government and more autonomy to the board in functioning on commercial principles was expected. However, it had been used by the government to deny subsidy to the board and at the same time not allowing it to charge tariffs as determined by the commission.
The situation was simply not sustainable and acceptable to the commission as it had the dangerous portents of cutting into the net assets base of the board. The commission advised the board to function as per the rule of law.
