Writ pleas against tariff hike dismissed

By Our Legal Correspondent

HYDERABAD, OCT. 16. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, consisting of Mr. Justice P. Venkatrama Reddy and Mr. Justice S. R. Nayak, on Monday dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the hike in power tariff in the State. Though no directions were given, the Bench felt that the Government should examine and take steps to see that the burden on some classes of consumers in the domestic and agricultural categories was lessened. The last date for payment of pending bills by domestic consumers without penalty was extended till October 30.

It may be recalled that after the new rates of power tariff came into force on June 4, several petitions were filed, challenging the constitutional validity of the Electricity Reforms Act and the procedure adopted by the Electricity Regulatory Commission before recommending the new tariff. The petitioners also asserted that the whole process of privatisation and the concept of reforms were dictated by the World Bank. They termed the whole process a colourable exercise of power.

The Government and the State Regulatory Commission placed the relevant documents, and argued that the whole process was part of economic reforms, and there was no mala fide nor non-application of mind. The Bench dealt with all these issues and delivered a 220-page judgment, declaring that the contentions raised by petitioners had no merit, and dismissed the writ petitions.

The Bench extracted the provisions of the Reforms Act and declared that the consent given by the President was valid and there was no colourable exercise of power. The Judges said that motives could not be attributed to the AP Legislature. Dealing with the contention that the World Bank was dictating terms, the Judges said that the court cannot read any sinister design in the terms and conditions prescribed by the World Bank. The argument of Legislature fraud was rejected. The Bench took note of the fact that the Reforms Bill was adopted by the Assembly in May, 1998, and the President gave his consent on October, 1998, while the State Government entered into an agreement with the World Bank in March, 1999. The Bench went on to examine the complaint against the procedure adopted by the Regulatory Commission, and made it clear that there was no substance in any of the complaints regarding the violation of principles of natural justice.

Dealing with the allegation that some consumers were penalised for the inefficiency of the authorities, the Bench remarked that in the first blush, it may appear that the law-abiding citizens should not be saddled with burden, but one must take an overall view. While taking note of the fact that there was no full- fledged data available regarding the losses due to transmission and theft, the Bench felt that in the given circumstances, the work was done by the Regulatory Commission to the best of its ability. ``It is not open to the court to find fault with the conclusions reached by the commission, on the ground that a more practical view is possible or different approach is preferable,'' the Judges said.

The Judges took note of the burden on domestic consumers in the 51-100 and 101-200 units per month categories. The Government said that the steep hike was due to the fact that tariff had not been revised since 1996. The Bench said that most of the people in these categories were either poor, or lower middle class people, and felt steep enhancement at a time may result in hardship to those consumers. The hike in the agricultural sector was 60 per cent.

The Bench made it clear that though no directions were being issued, it was expressing the hope that the Government will consider at the earliest and take decision to see that the hike was reduced for certain categories of domestic and agricultural consumers to a reasonable level.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Next     : Police announce reward on fugitive