BUDGET 2000
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
COMMENTARY
GOVT&ECONOMY
Y2K: BIZ FEATURES
INDIA & THE WTO
CREDIT POLICY
BIZ IN THE USA
CARS & MOBIKES
MANAGEMENT
CASE STUDY
BIZ-QUIZ
USEFUL INFO
ARCHIVES
NEWSLINKS
SEARCH REDIFF

High Court admits writ against AP power tariff hike

A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice P Venkatarama Reddy and Justice S R Nayak, on Friday admitted a writ petition challenging the AP Electricity Regulatory Commission's decision to effect a steep hike in the power tariff in the state.

The bench refused to stay the billing of power consumption under the new tariff on the ground that there was no likelihood of the raising of the bills immediately by the AP Transco. Justice Reddy observed that the request of the petitioner for stay on the new billing system can be considered on July 3 when the petition comes up for further hearing.

The court, however, directed the issuance of notices to the state government and the AP Transco and AP Electricity Regulatory Commission to file their counter-affidavits within two weeks. The bench also directed the petitioner to file the rejoinder, if any, within a week thereafter.

The petition was filed by a practising advocate S Bharat Kumar contending that the action of the APERC, Transmission Corporation of AP, or AP Transco, and the state government in fixing abnormally high tariff for all the power consumers in the state was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the AP Electricity Reforms Act.

The petitioner alleged that the ERC and AP Transco have breached the statutory requirement under section 26 (9) of the AP Electricity Reforms Act while effecting a "huge, arbitrary and oppressive" hike in the power tariff. The provision contemplated that there must be three months' advance intimation for increasing the tariff.

The petition, among other things, challenged the constitutional validity of section (11) (e) and (2) of the AP Electricity Reforms Act which empowers the APERC top arbitrarily fix the tariff of the retail power consumption by the consumers, including the domestic consumers. The petition also sought a declaration from the court terming the notification on the tariff hike as illegal.

The petitioner contended that the process of the tariff revision by the ERC was nothing but a farce and mockery of judicial process since the state government committed to international financial institutions that it would enhance power tariff at the rate of 15 per cent every year from 2000 to 2003.

The petition argued that it was unreasonable to throw the burden on the consumer to cover up the accumulated losses of the AP Transco and the erstwhile AP State Electricity Board. The losses were a result of non-payment of promised subsidies by the government and inefficient functioning of the electricity sector. The ERC, he contended, was not an independent body and it went out of its purview by recommending a hike beyond what was sought by AP Transco.

Speaking for the bench, Justice Reddy said. "The instant writ petition raises various questions of vital public interest and the issues concerning general public. It is necessary that such a case shall be heard expeditiously."

Since there is no likelihood of raising the bills by the electricity authorities on the basis of the enhanced power tariff, the bench refused the stay on the raising of the bills. However, the bench posted the miscellaneous application seeking the stay on enhancement of power tariff for further hearing on July 3.

The bench made this observation in response to a request made by the petitioner's counsel and former advocate-general S Ramachandra Rao that during the interregnum, the enhanced power tariff may not be collected. Justice Reddy observed that the issue would be considered on July 3.

Business

Andhra Pradesh