TANGEDO rejects charges; says no facts placed to support it

Rejecting a petitioner's charges that Tamil Nadu has suffered Rs one lakh crore loss due to delay in implementing power projects and purchase from private players at exorbitant rates, state-owned TANGEDCO today told the Madras High Court that CAG periodically reviews their performance and no material had been placed to support the charges.
K Sundaravadhanam, Chief Finacial Controller/Regulatory Cell, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, said their accounts and performance are reviewed periodically by CAG. The petitioner had primarily relied on articles in newspapers and views posted by individuals in websites and had not placed any other material in support of his charges.

"It is a position in law that news items cannot be a basis for filing and maintaining a writ petition as a PIL," he said.
Petitioner Selvaraj had charged the then TNEB chairman Gnanadesikan with ensuring an artificial power shortage throughout the state by not implementing the new-age legislation Electricity Act 2003 in letter and spirit.
Noting that the official was at the helm of TNEB affairs for 13 years since 2001, the petitioner alleged that a group of authorities prevented new projects from taking off and delayed completion indefinitely to maintain artificial power shortage in Tamil Nadu.
After delaying projects and stalling generation in eexisting units for many months, they went for purchasing power from the private sector at exorbitant prices, involving several thousand crores of rupees. There was a criminal nexus among TNEB authorities, contractors and PSUs like BHEL, he said, adding TNEB had not invoked statutory provisions to recover 'wheeling charges' from contractors for missing deadlines.

Describing it as the state's biggest 'scandal' so far, he sought constitution of a Special Investigation Team, comprising eminent citizens like former CAG Vinod Rai, to probe it.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishna Kaul and Justice M M Sundresh, before which the PIL came up on January 6, had given the government and TANGEDCO four weeks to submit its response.
TANGEDCO, in its reply, said their accounts and performance are reviewed periodically by CAG and constitution of a SIT was not required. As such, the PIL is not maintainable.
TANGEDCO submitted that the petitioner had relied on a report of April 14, 2003 relating to charges in purchase of conductors in 2001-02 while the facts were that the purchase order was issued only after tender process.

The reply further said the petitioner has relied on news in a website banned in India.
TANGEDCO said it was for Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission to consider independently, uninfluenced by external force or sources, to act duly, taking into account every aspect relating to the power sector. The petitioner as a matter of right cannot demand action against it, they said.