Govt?s effort to revive CESS suffers a jolt | india | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jun 27, 2017-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Govt?s effort to revive CESS suffers a jolt

THE UP Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC) on Tuesday directed the MD of Madhyanchal (Lucknow) Distribution Company not to enforce the agreement with Cooperative Electricity Supply Society (CESS) regarding its appointment as a franchisee till further instructions.

india Updated: Sep 06, 2006 01:06 IST

THE UP Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC) on Tuesday directed the MD of Madhyanchal (Lucknow) Distribution Company not to enforce the agreement with Cooperative Electricity Supply Society (CESS) regarding its appointment as a franchisee till further instructions.

The UPREC decision has given a setback to the government efforts to revive the CESS.

The Commission asked the MD to submit necessary papers related to franchisee agreement with CESS for the commission’s approval.

The news caused disappointment amongst the CESS officials who were all set to take over the power distribution and revenue realisation work in rural areas under six blocks today.

The Madhyanchal discom had on Saturday signed an agreement with the CESS appointing the latter as its input franchisee to supply electricity to around 70,000 consumers in various villages and recover revenue from them. This work was being done by LESA.

However, UP Rajya Vidyut Upbhokta Parisahd president Awadhesh Kumar Verma filed a petition in the UPERC on Monday, demanding the Commission to examine the agreement to see if it was inked as per the law.

Acting promptly on the petition, the Commission issued a stay order on the operation of the agreement. The Commission’s three-member bench comprising chairman Vijoy Kumar, and members PN Pathak and RD Gupta in its order observed: “The agreement put the responsibility on the franchisee instead of the licensee as to redress the consumers’ grievances or the safety standards to be adhered to. Moreover, nowhere in the agreement the interest of the consumers has been watched and the franchisee has been held responsible if acting against the interest of the consumers.”