Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13.3 The data and information furnished by Lanco in the earlier Petition filed by Lanco was inadequate, insufficient and had apparent inconsistencies. The Tribunal in the judgment and Order dated 03.01.2014 had inter-alia granted another opportunity to Lanco to furnish requisite details in support of its claim for increase in Capital Cost so as to enable the State Commission to apply prudence check and re-determine the tariff.

13.4 The State Commission was required to exercise prudence check in order to ascertain not only the veracity of the claim of Lanco but also to seek whether all the capital expenditures, as claimed, had in fact been incurred reasonably or prudently, wherein, in case any such part of the capital expenditure though incurred, was not prudent or expedient, the State Commission ought to have rejected the same.

13.11 The "Disclaimer" given by the Consultant, E&Y, in the Draft Report submitted by them to the State Commission on 08.07.2014 clearly shows that the report should not have been considered as representing the truth and without further prudence check to be applied.

13.12 The Ernest & Young had apparently, not carried out the necessary prudence check and has even disclaimed any responsibility for the work undertaken.

13.13 Despite the repeated opportunities available with Lanco for placing necessary particulars, Lanco also did not seek to remove the inconsistencies or furnish or fully disclose necessary data and information in support of its claim for increase in capital cost. The limited and skewed information provided by Lanco, has been accepted at face value, without proper Judgment In A.No.107 of 2015 & 117 of 2015 scrutiny. In the circumstances, adverse inference in terms of section 114 of the Evidence Act should have been drawn against Lanco on account of inconsistencies and insufficiency of data.

14.8 In reply dated 10.02.2014 filed by HPPC to LAPL's submission dated 13.01.2014,in response to capital cost claimed by LAPL based on the Auditor's certificate and detailed reasons given for cost overrun, HPPC vaguely assailed the Auditor's certificate in Paras 10 & 11 thereof on the sole ground that it contained disclaimer. After citing judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal on prudence check in Paras 13 and 14 of its reply, it culled out the principles laid down in the said judgments in Paras 15, 16 and 17 of the reply. Apart from above, HPPC failed to raise any specific objection qua the information and documents furnished by LAPL as regards the capital cost incurred by it. Even in the present Appeal, apart from pointlessly repeating the importance of principles of prudence check and alleging that the Commission has not conducted prudence check and the information and details given by LAPL were incomplete, inadequate and inconsistent, HPPC has failed to pin point any specific issue or objection as regards the capital cost incurred by LAPL. As stated, the allegation regarding disclaimer in Auditor's Certificate has been given up and not argued before this Tribunal.

14.30 In this regard it is submitted that the certificate furnished by the Statutory Auditor certifies the actual cost incurred. Such certificate was duly furnished. The prudence check on the cost overrun has been applied by the Commission itself as is evident from the impugned Order. It is while exercising prudence check only, the Commission has made huge deductions from the capital cost certified by the Auditor by stating that the cost was not incurred prudently, the Commission has recorded as follows:-