E-Paper
PSPCL official fined ₹10k for two-year delay in service delivery
The order, dated September 23, relates to a complaint filed by Tript Developers & Infrastructures Pvt Ltd, Mohali, concerning the notified service of “Shifting of high tension/extra high tension line exceeding 11 kilovolts (kV)”
Prefer HTon Google
The Punjab Transparency and Accountability Commission (PTAC) has imposed a ₹10,000 penalty on Kamaljot Singh, deputy chief engineer of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), for allegedly failing to provide a notified public service within the prescribed timeframe, with the delay stretching beyond two years. The commission has also recommended appropriate departmental/disciplinary proceedings against the officer for non-compliance with its directions.
The order, dated September 23, relates to a complaint filed by Tript Developers & Infrastructures Pvt Ltd, Mohali, concerning the notified service of “Shifting of high tension/extra high tension line exceeding 11 kilovolts (kV)”.
According to the commission, the complainant had submitted its application on April 1, 2024, along with the requisite documents, for execution of 66-kV underground cable works. Under the notified service, the stipulated time for delivery was 30 days.
The commission noted that a committee comprising PSPCL officials had been constituted to examine alternative technical solutions for shifting the 66-kV overhead transmission line by laying underground cables. During a site visit, the committee observed that the line could be shifted using monopoles and conveyed the proposal to the complainant, who was also advised to revise the layout plan of the society accordingly.
The matter was subsequently taken up in several hearings. The commission summoned the concerned officials and examined the record, including the proceedings relating to a similar case involving the shifting of a 66-kV transmission line from the premises of Posh City in Sector 90/91, Mohali. In that case, PSPCL had issued a tentative demand notice following the intervention of the high court.
Taking the precedent into account, the commission directed Kamaljot Singh to issue a similar tentative demand notice to the complainant. However, the commission later observed that its direction had not been complied with. Instead, the respondent sought modification of the order.
The commission also rejected reliance on a PSPCL policy issued on June 20, 2025, observing that the complainant had submitted its application in April 2024, before the policy came into force. Therefore, the subsequent policy could not be applied to the earlier application or used to justify the delay in processing it.
