Sampat demands probe into ₹1,300cr payout by Haryana power utilities

At a briefing, the Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) leader said the public ought to know who authorised the payout of ₹1,300 crore, through which mechanism, on what terms, and why it was executed with such unseemly urgency bypassing the most senior political authority in the energy portfolio

Former Haryana finance minister Sampat Singh on Friday demanded an inquiry into the ₹1,300 crore payment made by Haryana power utilities (HPUs) to Sikkim Urja Limited (erstwhile Teesta Urja Ltd) – a power generation company in which Greenko Energies holds a majority stake – without the approval of the chief minister and energy minister, as required under government procedure.

The INLD leader, who has criticised the government’s decision to impose a 47 paise per unit fuel surcharge on power consumers, filed a petition with the HERC. (HT File)

At a briefing, the Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) leader said the public ought to know who authorised the payout of ₹1,300 crore, through which mechanism, on what terms, and why it was executed with such unseemly urgency bypassing the most senior political authority in the energy portfolio.

HT had on March 8 published the story about how a hefty payment of about ₹1,300 crore was made by HPUs to Sikkim Urja Limited without the approval of the CM and energy minister, thus putting the spotlight on the decision-making process that facilitated the high-value payment.

“These are questions that demand answers before the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC), the state government, and if necessary the comptroller and auditor general (CAG). The people of Haryana are entitled to know the full truth of how ₹1,300 crore found its way into a private conglomerate’s accounts while 84 lakh consumers waited for agriculture tubewell subsidy and fuel surcharge subsidy the state government was legally bound to pay on time but was delayed,’’ the INLD leader said.

The INLD leader, who has criticised the government’s decision to impose a 47 paise per unit fuel surcharge on power consumers, filed a petition with the HERC. The petition opposes the power distribution companies’ move to levy additional charges by seeking an exemption under regulation 68 regarding the Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) for the 2025-26 fiscal.

Singh attended the proceedings before HERC on May 14 which were deferred to June 10. The power distribution companies had petitioned the HERC seeking exemption from the monthly levy of fuel and power purchase adjustment surcharge (FPPAS) for 2025-26 and for allowing its recovery alongwith carrying cost in subsequent financial years on uniform per unit basis across all consumer categories.

The INLD leader said that the distribution companies are seeking to resurrect “statutorily dead” claims—specifically the ₹1,134 crore FPPAS spike from November 2025, which is for only one company, but the total would run into thousands of crores if all other cases are also included.

Simultaneously, Singh questioned the “clandestine” ₹1,300 crore payout to Sikkim Urja Limited in October 2025, stating it was executed with “surreptitious alacrity” bypassing both the CM and energy minister, Anil Vij.

The INLD leader said that Section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003, mandated that subsidy shall be paid in advance—it is Parliament’s command, not a policy footnote. “Yet a subsidy of ₹1,971 crore from the state government remains unreleased, compelling the distribution companies to bridge their liquidity chasm through commercial borrowings,’’ he said.

Singh said that in his petition, he has demanded complete rejection of the FSA. The INLD leader said in his capacity as a consumer and a former minister, he considers the proposed levy by the distribution companies as legally invalid.

“This petition violated provisions of the HERC regulations as well as the Electricity Act, 2003. The sole objective of the FSA is to account for actual fluctuations in fuel and power purchase cost and that too only after rigorous scrutiny. It cannot be utilised as a mechanism to offset losses stemming from corruption within the electricity distribution companies,” he alleged.

Singh said that the regulations clearly stipulated that any fuel surcharge adjustment must be effected within two months; failing which the right to recover such expenses stands forfeited. Citing past precedents, he said that the Supreme Court and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity have consistently held that such rights cannot be exercised to circumvent statutory provisions or to effect an indirect review of tariff orders.

“Why should consumers be made to bear the costs of inefficient, short-term power procurement? Consumer interest must remain paramount. Allowing such arbitrary fuel and power purchase adjustment surcharges would render the entire tariff determination process meaningless,” the INLD leader said.