The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday directed the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) to issue disconnection notices to top 100 defaulters of the power utility with immediate effect and after completion of statutory disconnection notice period snap power supply for recovery of arrears.
The court also asked the MSEB to file an action taken report (ATR) within three months.
A division bench consisting of justice J N Patel and justice R S Mohite on Friday came down heavily upon the inaction and lethargy of the MSEB in recovering its dues from the top 100 high tension (HT) line consumers.
The high court warned the state government not to interfere in the process of recovery of dues and made it clear that the chief secretary to the government of Maharashtra should provide necessary assistance and should ensure that no hindrance is created in the process of recovery of dues collectively running into hundreds of crore.
The directions were given during the hearing of two public interest litigation (PIL) filed by grahak panchayat and vice-chairman of the bar council of Maharashtra and Goa Adv Aniruddha Choube against the MSEB.
The list of top 100 defaulters is led by Ispat Industries Ltd, whose dues are pegged at a staggering Rs 275.90 crore, followed by Uniferro International Ltd with Rs 96.18 crore and Llyod Steel Industries Ltd with Rs. 47.41 crore.
"In our opinion this (delay in recovery) seems to have been caused by gross neglect and dereliction of duty and failure to take timely action by the MSEB officials who were armed with statutory powers," the high court opined, while indicting the MSEB officials for their failure in collection of electricity tariff from the HT line consumers.
The high court directed the MSEB to serve notices of disconnection to top 100 HT line consumers/ defaulters named in the list placed by the MSEB before the court on Friday.
The high court also directed the board to compile a comprehensive list of all commercial and industrial defaulters within one month and initiate similar action against them. The entire exercise should be completed within two months, the high court directed.
The high court also made it clear that defaulters falling under four categories could be exempted from immediate disconnection.
These, the court classified as consumers who had already been granted facility of payment by installment prior to passing of the order; defaulters who had initiated litigation against the MSEB and obtained restraining orders against the MSEB in respect of recovery of dues; consumers who had raised a dispute before the Electrical Inspector prior to date of notice under section 24 and 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and lastly in respect of defaulters who had been granted instalment by way of concession.
However, in case of defaulters who had procured installment facility and not paid a single instalment, the high court directed the MSEB to immediately disconnect power supply.
The court said that even if after receipt of notice under section 24 and 26 the defaulters did not clear their dues, the MSEB should conclude the process of disconnection and discontinuation of power supply within a period of one month from the new date of notice demanding payment of dues.
During the course of hearing the MSEB submitted that a high-powered committee headed by the MSEB chairman which includes member (accounts) and member (technical) had been constituted for expeditious recovery of arrears on February 5, 2002.
The said committee was meeting twice a month to work out modalities of recovery on case to case basis and an action plan had already been prepared by the committee. The said action plan for recovery of arrears was communicated to all chief engineers on June 4, 2002 by member (technical).
Taking a comprehensive view of the matter the high court directed the MSEB to scrupulously follow its directions, notwithstanding any negotiations under progress.
The high court rejected the plea forwarded by the MSEB that negotiations were going on with defaulters and hence no coercive action was initiated.
"Mere fact of initiation of any negotiation with any consumer/ defaulter will not be a ground for not giving effect to our direction of discontinuation of power supply," the High Court stated.
The High Court during the last hearing had directed the MSEB to produce a list of local bodies who have failed to pay power bill. But the list produced by the MSEB included names of many private co-operative societies as well. Hence the High Court directed the MSEB to prepare a list of such local bodies and statutory bodies who receive government grants for payment of electricity bills or who are entitled for reimbursement of electricity bills, but have failed to pay, within two months with all details.
Taking a serious cognisance of the fact that political pressure often force the MSEB to drop the recovery drive and restore the power supply to defaulters, the High Court sternly warned the State Government not to come in the way of MSEB in recovery of statutory dues. Quoting the specific instance of Mula-Pravara Sugar Co-Operative Factory, Shrirampur, which owes a whopping Rs. 450 crore dues, the High Court noted that the MSEB had disconnected the power supply but after the stiff local resistance and due to law and order problem the State Government intervened after which the power supply was restored.
The State Government was duty bound to provide protection to MSEB officials who were trying to discharge their statutory obligations and duty, the High Court observed while indicting the state government on this count.
Adv. Ram Parsodkar, Adv. Indranil Damle appeared for Grahak Panchayat while Adv. Avinash Gharote appeared for Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council Adv. Aniruddha Choube. AGP Bharati Dangre represented the state government. Adv, Anand Parchure appeared for the MSEB Trade Union. Senior Counsel K. H. Deshpande and Adv. R. E. Mohrir held the brief for the MSEB.
