Uttarakhand High Court
R T I Club Uttarakhand vs Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. And ... on 7 January, 2020
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 93 of 2019
R T I Club Uttarakhand .............Petitioner
Vs.
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. and others
...........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd. Matlub, learned
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned
Advocate for the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited.
Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 5.
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) IA No.15836 of 2019 IA No.14467 of 2019 Supplementary counter affidavit and Supplementary Rejoinder affidavit are taken on record.
2. The table places before us today discloses that some efforts have been made, though not completely, to ensure that electricity meters are installed in residential buildings of all the employees/pensioners of the three Corporations to whom unlimited electricity is being supplied, as at present, at a miserly amount per month.
3. Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Advocate, would contend that a final decision would be taken within two weeks; and this Court may consider deciding the entire issue thereafter.
4. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the proposal, placed before the Board, is merely an eye-wash, and has been made only to circumvent early adjudication of the lis by this Court. Learned Senior Counsel would point out that, while the table appears to indicate a downward revision of the maximum permissible consumption of electricity by employees in different categories, the fine print (note-2 below) would show that, for the excess 2 amount beyond the maximum ceiling prescribed, employees are still not required to pay at the rate prescribed for other consumers; and are offered concessional electricity at 50% of the rate prescribed for the general public.
5. While we find force in the submission of Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel, that the proposal submitted to the Board does appear, prima facie, to be unreasonable and arbitrary since even Judges of the High Court, for the electricity consumed by them beyond the maximum prescribed limit, are required to pay electricity charges at the market rate and no concession is given to them in this regard, we defer hearing of the writ petition recording the submissions of Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel, that what was placed before the Board is only a proposal; and the Board would consider all aspects of the matter, and take a final decision within two weeks.
6. With a view to ascertain the extent of the financial burden caused by such excessive benefits being provided to the employees of the Corporation, we direct the Corporation to furnish, by the next date of hearing, details of the total quantum of electricity supplied, to all employees (serving and retired and family pensioners), from the top post of Managing Director to the lowest post of an attendant, for the years 2017 to 2019; and the amount which the Corporation would have received if this quantum of electricity had been supplied to the general public at the prevailing market rates.
7. List the Writ Petition (PIL) on 10.02.2020 immediately after "fresh admission". It is made clear that, in case no final decision is taken by then, the writ petition shall be heard on its merits, and in accordance with law, on that date.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ.) 07.01.2020 Sanjay /NEHA