Dismiss plea against power privatisation, Chandigarh Administration asks HC

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 26

The UT Administration today asked the Punjab and Haryana High Court to dismiss a petition against the privatisation of the Electricity Department. Among other things, it was stated that the petition was still premature and the process would take time to finalise.

As the case came up for hearing, it was argued on behalf of the Administration that a proposal had been sent to the Union Home Ministry for approval. The process of privatisation could be finalised only after the approval of the Cabinet. So, this matter was still in the initial stage.

The petitioner, on the other hand, submitted in the court that the process of privatisation had been challenged in the High Court. As such, their side was required to be heard and the decision of the Administration quashed.

The matter was brought to the notice of the High Court after a petition was filed by the UT Powermen Union. The Bench, on a previous date of hearing, was told on the petitioner’s behalf that the union was aggrieved by the decision to privatise the electricity wing by selling 100 per cent stake of the government in the absence of any provision under Section 131 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

It has also contended that the transfer scheme without calling for objections from all stakeholders could not be legally sustained and acted upon. As per Section 131(2) of the Act, the power could not be transferred to a totally private entity with no stake or control of the government.

“The entire action of the respondents in privatising the electricity wing of the Engineering Department, UT, and the entire process being carried out pursuant thereto, including an office memo dated June 10, the decision taken during a meeting on the privatisation of the power department/utilities held on May 12 as far as the UT, is concerned and the notice inviting bids and documents prepared in relation thereto is not only illegal, unjust, arbitrary, unconstitutional, but also in violation of the provisions and the principles of law…,” it was added.