HC pulls plug on Digvijay’s power sop

Under the Act, the subsidy has to be paid in advance, in a manner to be decided by the State Regulatory Commission, to the affected party: in this case, the Electricity Board. Announcing the subsidy on September 24, the government said that the payment would be made after December 31, 2003.

A petition based around this issue was moved before the High Court questioning the subsidy.

The High Court issued notices to the state government on October 8. On the same day, the state government took advantage of the provisions of the Central Act and suspended it for six months.

According to the petitioner’s counsel R K Gupta, ‘‘Sec 65 of the Electricity Act requires deposit of the subsidy in advance. This was not done when the subsidy was announced. The state government was trying to legalise their failure to do so with retrospective effect. But this was done after the code of conduct came into place. Now the EC will determine if this is a violation of the code.’’

When contacted at the time of the Cabinet decision, S C Jain, Officer on Special Duty to the Department of Power, had said, ‘‘The government has powers under the Act to suspend it for six months. This decision was taken on October 8.’’ Asked if this was related to the High Court petition, he first stated that the decision preceded the petition but then admitted it was taken on the same day that notices were issued to the state government.

At the same time, a government spokesman said the Act requires setting up of theft courts and enactment of six rules and 14 notifications. That needed more time than was available. Hence, the decision.