Before the
World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th floor,
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005.
Tel. No. 022 22163964/65/69 – Fax 022 22163976
E-mail mercindia@mercindia.com
Website: www.Mercindia.com
In the matter of
State Govt. subsidy for providing free
electricity supply to agricultural consumers.
Dr Pramod Deo, Member
Shri A. Velayutham, Member
In
its Order dated 23rd August, 2004 (paras 23 and 24), the Commission had held
and directed as follows:
"23. ….Chairman, MSEB had stated without
rebuttal at the hearing that not only are budget provisions inadequate to meet
the requirements of compensation even for the 2nd quarter starting 1st July,
2004, but that there is in fact no balance of loans, etc. due for repayment by
MSEB to GoM during this quarter. In any
event, for the reasons cited above,
Commission directs that the compensation would have to be paid in cash
before bills are raised unless GoM can show that there is still scope for
adjustment since payments from MSEB are due.
Regulation 8.4 cited above already makes clear what is to be done if
there is any shortfall against the actual requirement, viz. that subsidy
against tariff will not be permitted to that extent.
24. In view of the above, GoM are directed to
compensate MSEB and MPECS by net cash releases to the extent required for the 2nd
quarter of 2004-05 well before raising of bills for that quarter. With regard to the subsequent period, GoM
are free to approach the Commission when they are able to show that they
fulfill the requirements of the Commission and of the Tariff Regulations for
that period. While doing so, or before
that time, GoM should deal on affidavit with those issues raised by the
consumer representatives in their written submissions which have yet to be
addressed, along with the detailed information asked for."
Thereafter,
the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) approached the Commission on
affidavit dated 14th September, 2004 stating that, subsequent to their earlier
submissions and the Commission's Order, the Govt. of Maharashtra (GoM) had
issued a Resolution (G.R.) dated 8th September, 2004 stating that Rs 411.62
crores were due from MSEB to GoM on account of deduction made by Govt. of India
(GoI) from the Block Loan towards dues from MSEB to certain Central Public
Sector Undertakings (CPSUs). Upon
verification from their Accounts, MSEB have found this to be correct. Thus, the estimated requirement of Rs 395
crores (plus Rs 7 .5 crores for MPECS) due from GoM to MSEB as compensation
towards 100% subsidy to agricultural consumers in the 2nd quarter of the
current financial year can be adjusted against the amount of Rs 411.62 crores
payable by MSEB to GoM as above.
Therefore, MSEB have sought permission to issue zero energy bills to
agricultural consumers for the period from 1st July, 2004 to 30th September,
2004.
2. In its Notice for hearing, citing paras 23 and 24 of its
Order and MSEB's latest affidavit, the Commission asked MSEB to furnish on
affidavit details so as to show that the net amount (i.e. taking all dues on
either side into consideration) payable by MSEB to GoM upto the 2nd Quarter of
2004-05 leave sufficient balance for GoM to make compensation by way of
adjustment rather than by net cash releases.
GoM were also directed to furnish their say on affidavit, along with a
copy of the G.R. referred to by MSEB.
3. In
response, MSEB filed an affidavit dated 20th September, 2004 stating as
follows:
"(1) …. the position of receivables and
payables was reconciled between the Govt. of Maharashtra (GOM) (Energy and
Finance Departments) and the MSEB.
(2) ….
During reconciliation it was pointed out by GoM that there are certain items
where final decision is yet to be taken by GoM, while on some other items the
methodology of calculations etc. needs to be looked into. The position, as it emerges out of a quick
review is as under:
Amount
receivable from GOM as on 31.03.2004 481.68….(1)
Less: Amount
payable on account of deductions made by GOI 411.62
towards block loan.
Net amount
receivable from GOM as on 31.3.2004 70.06
Amount
Receivable from GoM (2004-05) upto 30.09.2004
Bond
budgetary support for DPC 27.03
Core
Plan 33.52
Compensation
for Ag. Tariff (April - June '04) 13.64
Compensation
for Ag. Tariff (July - Sept '04) 395.00
Compensation
for Power loom 128.00
Elect.
Works under for National Games, Pune 2.58
(Old
arrears)
Reimbursement
towards payment made to 0.18
advisory
committee. --------
599.95 [A]
Amount
payable to GoM
Interest
on GoM loan 172.99
Repayment
of GoM Loan 86.14
Guarantee
Fees 41.62
Elect.
Duty (on collection basis) 294.48
Lease
rent for hydro projects 125.00 ….(2)
(approx.
Rs 250 crores Per Year)
Installments
of CPSU dues 43.29
--------
763.52 [B]
--------
Net
amount payable to GoM [B] - [A] = 163.57 Crs.
Notes:
1.
Includes amount of (i) Rs 221.92 crore towards Mula Pravara
and (ii) Rs 268.82 crore as an amount of difference in Electricity Duty, on
which discussions are going on with GoM.
2.
The issue of lease rent payable for hydro power stations is
not yet settled.This will have to be worked out on the basis of guidelines
issued by CERC and will have to be finally approved by the Commission. As per preliminary calculations, it will be
approximately Rs 250 crore per annum.
(3) ….This
position is likely to change depending upon the final decision taken on issues
presently unresolved".
4. GoM
also filed a written submission dated 21st September, 2004 stating that, in accordance
with the Commission's Order dated 23rd August, 2004, GoM had issued orders the
next day releasing Rs 395 crores and Rs 7.50 crores to MSEB and MPECS
respectively. However, MSEB have been
purchasing power, coal and other supplies from various CPSUs.Certain
outstanding amounts used to be directly paid to these CPSUs by the GoI. The GoI in turn recovered this amount from
various amounts sanctioned by GoI to GoM in different years starting from
1990-91. Over the years, an amount of
Rs 411.62 crores has been deducted on account of such recoveries by GoI from
amounts receivable from the GoM. MSEB
have to repay this amount to GoM.
Thus, GoM have taken a decision on 8th September, 2004 to release an
amount of Rs 395 crores and Rs 7.50 crores to MSEB and MPECS respectively for
the second quarter by book adjustment.
GoM also pointed out that MSEB had agreed, vide their affidavit dated
14th September, 2004, to the above adjustment.
5. With
regard to the gross dues of Rs 481.68 crores claimed by MSEB as due as on 31st
March, 2004, GoM have stated that it includes major items which are not yet
resolved, as follows:
"MSEB has claimed a refund of differential amount
between electricity duty on billed basis and collection basis for the period
from 1990-91 to 2002-03 amounting to Rs 268.82 crores. As electricity duty is the first charge on
the amounts recovered from consumers end, the claim would have to be examined
in this light. The matter is under
consideration….MSEB has also claimed compensation of losses due to viable
tariff to Mula Pravara Elec. Co.op. Society of Rs 221.92 crores. This matter is under examination….. In any
case, the said Rs 481.68 crores and other receivable claim by the MSEB includes
several items, the computations of which will need to be checked and audited if
necessary."
6. GoM
have further stated that Rs 274.49 crores have accrued as interest on the
amount of Rs 411.62 crores directly deducted by GoI. This also has to be paid by MSEB to GoM. Moreover, the lease rent of hydro projects
needs to be refixed, the lease agreements having already expired. On commercial principles, the Irrigation
Department has worked it out as Rs 381 crores, but the matter is still under
GoM's consideration as per the Commission's suggestion. Thus, GoM have argued that the amount due
from MSEB is much higher than what is required as payment of compensation for
the 100% subsidy against tariff decided by GoM for agricultural consumers in the
current 2nd quarter.
7. The
matter was heard on 21st September, 2004.
At the outset, referring to GoM's submission dated 21st September, 2004,
Shri B.P. Pandey, Principal Secretary (Energy) submitted that Rs 411.62 crores
had been deducted directly by GoI from amounts receivable by GoM on account of
recoveries due to CPSUs from MSEB accumulated over the past few years. Thus, correspondingly, this additional
amount is payable by MSEB to GoM.
Accordingly, the G.R. dated 8th September, 2004 has been issued. Thus, the amount of compensation for the
2nd quarter of 2004-05 against 100% tariff subsidy would be adjusted against
that amount.
8. The
Commission observed that the notice for hearing had asked for details as to the
net amount, if any, payable by MSEB to GoM.
MSEB have given the figures, but GoM's written submission does not give
the full details. Shri Vinayak Rao,
Accounts Member, MSEB, referring to MSEB's affidavit dated 20th September,
2004, submitted that a gross amount of Rs 481.68 crores was due from GoM as on
31st March, 2004. When reconciliation
was done taking into account Rs 411.62 crores as above, the net amount
receivable from GoM stood at Rs 70.06 crores.
MSEB's affidavit then sets out the amounts receivable from GoM upto 30th
September, 2004. He pointed out that
these amounts were the same as presented earlier by MSEB, but they take into account the period uptil
September, 2004 instead of the full financial year. Explaining some of the receivables, Shri Rao stated that Rs 13.64
crores shown as compensation for the earlier subsidy against agricultural
tariff in the 1st quarter was only the balance remaining, more than Rs 200
crores having been adjusted already. Rs
128 crores shown as subsidy for powerlooms is half of the amount required for
the full year. In this manner, the
total gross amount receivable from GoM upto 30th September, 2004 is Rs 599.95 crores.
9. As
regards gross amounts payable by MSEB to GoM, Shri Rao drew attention to the
explanatory note to the lease rent for hydro projects estimated by MSEB at
approx. Rs 125 crores, being half of Rs 250 crores for the whole year. However, GoM have a different view on this,
and submitted that the revised lease rent has not yet been settled. An exercise has been taken up on the basis
of CERC guidelines, and the figure cited is a preliminary estimate. In sum, after netting the total amount of Rs
763.52 crores estimated as payable to GoM upto 30th September, 2004, MSEB still
have to pay Rs 163.57 crores even after adjusting Rs 395 crores for 100%
agricultural subsidy in the current quarter.
10. The
Commission observed that the net amount of Rs 163.57 crores would be further
reduced to the extent of net receivables of Rs 70.06 crores from GoM as on 31st
March, 2004. The Commission queried as
to the impact of the adjustments on the cash flow position of MSEB, and noted
that some amounts are still unresolved and under discussion. If adjustment is made, there will be no
actual receipts and this would, therefore, have a cash flow impact. With regard to Commission's query regarding
MPECS, Shri Jayant Kawale, Chairman, MSEB submitted that even if the claim is
accepted then, as noted in MSEB's affidavit, Rs 221.92 crore would still have
to be accounted for and has been included as part of the amount receivable from
GoM as on 31st
March, 2004. The Commission observed
that through the adjustment mechanism, in practice, MSEB would have to forego
cash receipts of this amount. Shri Rao
agreed that there would not be net cash receipts. However, in any case, GoM would have deducted/ adjusted Rs 411.62
crores of CPSU dues recovered by GoI from GoM's account. Drawing attention to the Regulations, which
cited Electricity Duty as an example, Commission observed that the adjustments
should be on a cash and not on accrual basis.
11. Dr.
Ashok Pendse of Mumbai Grahak Panchayat pointed out that, in the space of three
weeks, MSEB have filed two contrary affidavits. In the first (in August, 2004), it had been stated that a net
additional amount of Rs 400 crores was required from GoM. However, in the
latest affidavit, the position is completely reversed. The question arises as
to which of these affidavits is to be relied upon. Further, MSEB's latest affidavit indicates that many items are
under consideration or discussion.
Therefore, these figures should be examined by a third party such as the
Accountant General wherever there is ambiguity, so that the final figures can
be properly arrived at.
12. Shri
Shantanu Dixit of Prayas referred to their earlier affidavit in which Prayas
had asked that GoM and MSEB should provide supporting material in respect of
dues payable on either side. Some
details were given by MSEB on 23rd August, 2004, and an affidavit was also
filed by GoM. The submissions were made
on affidavit and the Commission relied on them and passed Orders on the same
day. Shri Dixit also pointed out that
GoM's submission dated 21st September, 2004 was not notarized and not on
affidavit as had been required by the Commission. While conceding that the Commission had not always insisted on
affidavits, he submitted that, considering the contradictory stands taken in
the various submissions, it may not be proper to move ahead without an
affidavit from GoM. Dr. Pendse added
that, as he had pointed out at the last hearing, the required fees of Rs 500/-
have also not been paid by GoM. Shri Dixit also submitted that it was upto GoM
to show that there was scope for adjustment, and queried the propriety of MSEB
initiating the matter. The Commission
observed that, since the Principal Secretary (Energy) was personally present,
the written submission filed by GoM today can be treated as a statement which
can be taken into account as evidence by the Commission.
13. Without
prejudice to Prayas' right to take other recourse to the Commission's earlier
Order, Shri Dixit contended that MSEB's
affidavit does not give the full picture.
He drew attention to para 6 of the Commission's Order dated 18th May,
2004 in respect of tariff subsidy to agricultural and powerloom consumers which
reads as follows:
"MSEB have further submitted in
their reply that, in pursuance of directives issued by GoM under letter dated
20th October, 2003, instructions were issued to their field offices to accept
part payment of energy bills from agricultural and Powerloom consumers at the
subsidized tariff applicable during 2002-03, and the balance amount of the
respective energy bills is being treated as arrears. MSEB have urged the Commission to ask GoM to immediately
compensate them (either by way of adjustment against dues payable by MSEB or in
cash) for the loss of liquidity to MSEB on this account."
Shri
Dixit queried as to whether the new figures presented by MSEB take the above
into account. He also asked whether the
receivables from GoM on account of Krishi Sanjivani Yojana had been included,
and pointed out that it had been mentioned during those proceedings that the
likely amount for the Scheme would be Rs 1500 crores. Further, in July 2004, a scheme similar to Krishi Sanjivani Yojana
had been announced for powerlooms and municipal drinking water supply schemes,
and submitted that all these must be taken into account.
14. Shri
Dixit also referred to GoM's recent G.R. regarding subsidy of Rs 72 crores per
annum to MPECS to cover the Bulk Supply Tariff, plus Rs 4 crores for capital
expenditure. The G.R. also includes
treatment of arrears from MPECS to MSEB as a regulatory asset in MSEB's books
of account. This does not seem to be
reflected in the figures which have now been submitted.
15. Shri
Dixit submitted that various questions arise in respect of other items payable/
receivables in MSEB's affidavit, and queried as to when the Bond budgetary
support for Dabhol Power Company (Rs 27
crores) was due. As far as the lease rent
for hydro projects is concerned, he pointed out that it is Rs 85 crores per
annum at present, as against Rs 250 crores taken into account by MSEB. This higher amount, however, can only be
considered when the lease rent is formally revised. Taking into account all these points, Dr. Pendse stated that the
consumer representatives could list the issues and figures to be clarified and
on which CAG's vetting/ audit is required.
16. Shri
Dixit pointed out further that, in its Order dated 23rd August, 2004, the
Commission had stated that various issues raised at that time by the consumer
representatives would have to be addressed by GoM / MSEB before approaching the
Commission again, which has not been done.
Considering the complete reversal of stand by MSEB in a period of three
weeks, he queried as to what would happen if after another two weeks MSEB
discover that there are in fact some other large dues payable by GoM to
them. Therefore, the figures that have
been presented require to be substantiated.
17. Dr
S.L. Patil of Thane Belapur Industries Association submitted that GoM's
decision vitiates the very basis of the Commission's tariff Order. Merely paying compensation to the extent of
the agricultural bills will not amount to full compensation since the entire
tariff structure is affected and the consequences are ‘paid’ for by many other
consumers. Because of the wider
implication of GoM's decision, the actual difference between receipts and
payments will be much higher. The fear
that there will be a huge increase in electricity demand is in the process of
being confirmed. The losses ascribed to
T&D would also increase. He agreed
with the concerns expressed by other consumer representatives and submitted
that the figures needed to be examined, particularly in view of the grave
implications.
18. Shri
Pandey, Principal Secretary (Energy) stated that, with regard to the procedure,
GoM's submission had been made in the format of an affidavit but, because of
paucity of time, could not be sworn or notarized in the prescribed manner, and
that a formal affidavit would be filed the next day. (The Commission notes that, accordingly, a formal affidavit was
submitted on 22nd September, 2004.)
With regard to Prayas' implicit suggestion that the Commission relied
only on the affidavits filed while passing its Order of 23rd August, 2004, he
submitted that it was a speaking Order which showed that the Commission had
applied its mind.
19. Shri
Pandey submitted that the affidavits filed on the earlier occasion contain
statements which were made on the basis of matters as they were known at that
time. Thereafter, GoM and MSEB had gone
into them in further detail so that a full picture could emerge. With regard to the amount of Rs 411.62
crores, Shri Pandey submitted that discussions had been going on with regard to
how to deal with and account for the amount that had been deducted directly.
20. With
regard to the amount of Rs 481.68 crores shown by MSEB as outstanding from GoM
as on 31st March, 2004, Shri Pandey stated that this includes an amount of Rs
221.92 crores towards MPECS arrears.
One decision with regard to MPECS had already been taken in terms of
provision of subsidy under the recent G.R., i.e. Rs 72 crores plus Rs 4
crores. Shri Pandey also submitted that
the net balance arrived at was on the basis of figures which were not fully
audited, but the Commission had been approached again in view of the
approaching billing period for the current quarter. However, it had been decided in principle that the position would
be audited. As far as the other issues
raised by consumer representatives earlier are concerned, these would be
addressed as and when the Commission is approached for a dispensation for
subsequent quarters, as per the stipulation in the Order dated 23rd August,
2004.
21. Shri
Kawale, Chairman, MSEB reiterated that the figures tally with those presented
earlier, but on a half year basis, i.e. upto 30th September, 2004, which
explains the apparent discrepancies. He
also submitted that the current receivables and loan accounts are separate and
MSEB did not want them to get mixed up for adjustments because of cash flow
implications. The option was to treat
the amount of Rs 411.62 crores as loan or to adjust it. GoM chose the latter alternative, which was
their prerogative. There was an
enabling provision in the Budget to treat it as a loan, but GoM decided on the
adjustment route.
22. Prayas
and MGP sought details of the budgetary papers and the G.R. in order to examine
this position, and mentioned that this seems to amount to a change in the
status mandated by the Legislature.
Shri Pandey pointed out that the G.R. dated 8th September, 2004
accompanied GoM's submission. Shri
Kawale explained that MSEB had represented that this amount be treated as loan,
and the Legislature had made an enabling provision by way of approval to a
Supplementary Demand. However,
exercising their prerogative, GoM decided on an alternative route. The Commission directed that the relevant
Supplementary Demand papers should be furnished to the consumer representatives
and the Commission.
23. With
regard to the Krishi Sanjivani Yojana, Shri Kawale submitted that it related to
arrears and was adjusted against loan outstanding from MSEB to GoM, thus
retiring high interest debt to that extent.
This amounted to Rs 518 crores as on 31st March, 2004. Taking credit of this amount, MSEB
calculated the interest and adjusted it.
However, it may be noted that not all the concerned consumers
participated in the Krishi Sanjivani Yojana.
Shri Dixit of Prayas contended that, even so, adjustment would have to
be made for the entire scheme as envisaged, and then the position looked at the
end of the Scheme. The relevant Order
of the Commission mentions that the financial requirement for the entire Scheme
was Rs 1500 crores. Shri Kawale pointed
out that the loan amount was sufficient to cover that. In the case of similar Schemes in respect of
powerlooms and water supply schemes, the amount required to be adjusted will be
known only at their close. Shri Dixit
stated that this was precisely his point.
24. With
regard to the hydro projects lease rent, Shri Kawale mentioned that the
Commission had stated that this was a matter to be decided between GoM and
MSEB. MSEB had made some preliminary
computations on the basis of CERC guidelines and had taken the matter up with
GoM along with other unresolved issues.
25. To
Commission's observation regarding the matter of creation of regulatory asset
for treatment of arrears of MPECS, Shri Kawale clarified that there were, in
fact, 3 types of arrears, viz. prior to Commission's establishment; after its
establishment, and also arrears arising from the difference between the
guidelines issued regarding 'Viable Tariff' and actual payments made by MPECS. MSEB had proposed a certain dispensation
regarding each of these categories, which was under discussion with GoM. The Commission observed that this amount
cannot be treated as a regulatory asset without Commission's consideration and
approval. Interest is also not reflected.
Shri Kawale submitted that only Rs 221 crores have been shown as being
to GoM account because of the decision of 1999 regarding 'Viable Tariff'. However, the arrears after the Commission
came into existence would not be GoM's liability. The Commission observed that, in any case, the submissions from
MPECS and MSEB on that G.R. regarding subsidy and regulatory asset have been
asked for separately.
26. With
regard to validation and audit of all figures, Shri Kawale submitted that, for
a complete exercise, we will have to go back to 1971, and on one matter or the
other, the reconciliation process would keep continuing.
27. To
Commission's query with regard to the note in MSEB's latest affidavit regarding
Rs 268 crores as differences in Electricity Duty, which are said to be under
discussion with GoM, Shri Kawale clarified that GoM have argued that, under the
statute, Electricity Duty is a first charge.
Thus, the issue is whether, if recovery is effected subsequently by
MSEB, Electricity Duty is to be taken entirely as a first charge or can be
appropriated. This is being examined in consultation with GoM.
28. Shri
Dixit of Prayas stated that at least on the figures which are under discussion
and on which audited statements cannot be given, the outcome should be awaited
or compensation to be made against tariff subsidy should be in the form of net cash releases. The Commission asked
MSEB to file explanatory notes on each of the figures, with a copy to the consumer
representatives.
29. In
their subsequent communication dated 22nd September, 2004, Prayas have
contended that G.R. dated 8th September, 2004 clarifies that the decision/
adjustment is under the jurisdiction and authority of the AG and has to be adjusted
by him. Prayas have stated further
that:
"In light of these facts, we bring to the notice of
Commission, MSEB and GoM that even assuming (without admitting) that there is
scope for book adjustments, as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003,
the compensation has to be paid in advance, i.e. in this case book adjustment
has to be completed before bills are raised.
Unless this is ensured, it would be a clear violation of the provisions
of EA, 2004, and will attract other relevant provisions of the Act. Further, we urge that before zero
agricultural bills for the second quarter are raised, MSEB must submit to the
Commission and consumer representatives a documentary evidence of receipt of
compensation for the same."
30. In
the light of the submissions made by GoM and MSEB and the points raised by the
consumer representatives, the Commission needs to examine whether the net
amount (i.e. taking all dues on either side into consideration) payable by MSEB
to GoM up to the 2nd Quarter of 2004-05 leave sufficient balance for GoM to
make compensation by way of book adjustment rather than by net cash releases.
Such an examination is warranted in view of Section 65 of the Electricity Act,
2003 and Regulation 8 of the MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations 2004, which read, inter alia, as
follows:
"Section 65. Provision of
subsidy by State Government: - If the State Government requires the
grant of any subsidy to any consumer or class of consumers in the tariff
determined by the State Commission under section 62, the State Government shall
notwithstanding any direction which may be given under section 108 pay, in
advance and in such manner as may be specified, the amount to compensate the
person affected by the grant of subsidy in the manner the State Commission may
direct, as a condition for the licence or any other person concerned to
implement the subsidy provided for by the State Government…"
8.
Grant of subsidies by the State Government:-
8.1
If the State Government requires the grant of any subsidy
to any consumer or class of consumers in the tariff determined by the
Commission, the State Government shall pay in advance the amount to compensate
the licensee/ person affected by the grant of subsidy in the following manner.
8.2
The amount of subsidy agreed to by the State Government may
be provided in the form of grant or by book adjustment of net dues payable by
the licensee to the State Government.
8.3
To the extent to which the subsidy is provided by book
adjustment of various dues payable by the licensee to the State Government,
such adjustment shall be done on the basis of cash in hand with the licensee
and not on an accrual basis in respect of dues to be collected by the licensee
from consumers on behalf of the State Government, such as electricity duty:
Provided that
the total requirement shall be adjusted on this basis before the subsidy can be
operationalised and reflected in the bills issued by the licensee to the
eligible consumers."
It is,
therefore, a necessary condition that book adjustment towards payment of
compensation for the grant of subsidy is made beforehand, just as cash payments
have to be made in advance. The question of whether or not the statement of
payments to be made by MSEB to GoM and vice-versa contains payments which will be effected
before bills for the 2nd quarter of 2004-05 are issued to agriculturists is
crucial to decide this matter. The
statement furnished by MSEB in
their affidavit is reproduced in paragraph 3 above. From the footnotes to that
statement, it is seen that the following payments are under discussion or
examination:
(i)
Rs 221.92 crore towards Mula Pravara
(ii)
Rs 268.82 crore as an amount of difference in Electricity Duty
(iii)
Rs 125 crore of lease rent payable for hydro power stations for
six months (as against Rs. 85 crore for the full year prevailing so far).
Unless GoM firm up the quantum of these payments by
issuing formal orders before electricity bills are issued to agricultural
consumers, the scheme of book
adjustment proposed by MSEB and GoM
cannot be made effective. The amounts that are not finalized as well as
adjusted through such formal orders before that date cannot be taken into
account while determining the net amount available for adjustment, and GoM shall make cash payments to the extent of
the consequent shortfall.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Dr Pramod DeoA. Velayutham ) (A.
VelayuthamA. VelayuthamDr. Pramod Deo)
Member
Member
(A.M. Khan)
Secretary, MERC