M A I N   N E W S

bhakra-beas power projects
Facilitate compensation settlement, SC tells AG
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, august 7
The Supreme Court today asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to intervene in the dispute over the compensation amount to be paid to Himachal Pradesh by Punjab and Haryana for short supply of electricity from Bhakra and Beas power projects since 1966.

A Bench comprising Justices Ranjana Desai and NV Ramana sought AG’s assistance as the three states were unable to arrive at an amicable settlement. Arguing for Himachal, senior advocates AK Ganguly and JS Attri rejected the rate suggested by the Centre on the basis of the tariff in the 1950s which involved subsidy for fertiliser production during the Green revolution.

Himachal was entitled to compensation on the basis of the commercial rate approved by the Northern Region Electricity Authority, Ganguly said and noted that several meetings held with Punjab and Haryana had failed to throw up a solution the dispute over the rate. At this, the Bench suggested the AG’s intervention and posted the next hearing for the second week of September. On July 16 last year, the Centre had told the SC that Punjab and Haryana would have to pay a compensation of Rs 1,497.39 crore to HP in the ratio of 58:42. HP had claimed a compensation of Rs 4,249 crore.

The Centre had calculated the compensation amount on SC’s directive in the September 27, 2011 judgment in HP’s original suit filed in 1996 seeking a higher share of electricity from these power projects. Subsequently, Punjab and Haryana told the SC that they did not owe Rs 1,497.39 crore to HP as calculated by the Centre. Rather, it was HP which owed them Rs 1,611.88 crore, representing its share in the construction cost of these projects, funds for which were raised by them through loans on interest, they said.

Haryana also rejected Centre’s alternative suggestion that instead of paying the amount in cash, Himachal could be compensated by additional allocation of power over the next 30 years.

The logjam

• An SC Bench sought AG's assistance as the three states — Punjab, Haryana, Himachal — were unable to arrive at an amicable settlement
• Arguing for Himachal, senior advocates AK Ganguly and JS Attri rejected the rate suggested by the Centre on the basis of the tariff in the 1950s which involved subsidy for fertiliser production during the Green revolution
• Himachal was entitled to compensation on the basis of the commercial rate approved by the Northern Region Electricity Authority, Ganguly said