* In its order issued on Wednesday, CCI has asked its Director General to
investigate the role of persons in charge and responsible for alleged
conduct of companies
By Kartik Lokhande
In a major development, Competition Commission of
India (CCI) has directed its Director General to conduct a probe into
the alleged ‘abuse of dominant position’ by Maharashtra Electricity
Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL). Hearing a case filed by Vidarbha
Industries Association (VIA), CCI has asked its Director General to
complete the investigation within two months.
VIA had filed a case with CCI against MSEB Holding Company Limited,
Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited (Mahagenco), MSEDCL,
and Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited
(Mahatransco). According to R B Goenka, VIA’s Energy Expert, VIA had
alleged that these power utilities as a group had abused their dominant
position inter alia by deliberately generating and distributing
electricity in ‘extremely inefficient’ manner and by denying market
access to ‘other efficient and economical’ power generating companies.
“The inefficient activities is reflected in the exorbitant cost
structure submitted to Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and
it results in increase in power tariff,” said Goenka. After hearing and
inspection of documents submitted by VIA, the CCI issued an order under
Section 26 (1) of the Competition Act, 2002 and directed its Director
General to investigate into the matter and submit the report within a
period of 60 days. CCI also directed its Director General to
investigate the role of persons who were in charge and were responsible
for the alleged conduct of such companies.
After hearing the matter and going through the allegations levelled by
the petitioner, CCI observed that MSEDCL was the only licensee
distributor of electricity in the relevant geographic market and hence
it was a ‘monopoly distributor’ of electricity there. With respect to
VIA’s allegation that MSEDCL continued to buy poweer from ‘cost
inefficient Mahagenco, CCI observed that MSEDCL purchased electricity
from Mahagenco at rates ‘comparatively higher than the rates offered by
other electricity generating enterprises.’ “This translates into higher
tariff charged to the end consumer as that tariff is decided by MERC on
the basis of purchase cost of MSEDCL. Prima facie, the said conduct of
MSEDCL amounts to indirect imposition of unfair price on the consumers,
which is in contravention of Section 4 (2) (a) (ii) of the Competition
Act,” observed the CCI.
As far as allegations of MSEDCL denying open access to others is
concerned, CCI stated it clearly that denial of open access ‘shut the
door on competition in the distribution market.’ Holding that MSEDCL’s
conduct was prima facie in contravention of Section 4 (2) (c) of the
Competition Act, the CCI observed, “The consumers are left with no
choice but to keep buying power at whatever rate the distribution
company supplies. On the other hand, a generator, who can become a rival
distributor through open access, cannot supply electricity to the
consumers.”
The CCI hearing was conducted before the coram of Ashok Chawla,
Chairperson; and members Anurag Goel, S L Bunker, and Sudhir Mittal.
Advocates K K Sharma and Danish Khan appeared for VIA. In its order
issued on Wednesday, CCI further made it clear, “Nothing herein shall
tantamount to an expression of official opinion on the merits of the
case and the DG shall conduct the investigation without being influenced
by any observation made therein.”
In its petition, VIA alleged that irrespective of the price charged by
Mahagenco, MSEDCL purchased all the power generated by it. “Since the
tariff for the power purchase is decided by MERC as per the cost
structure and revenue forecast submitted by MSEDCL, due to inefficiency
of Mahagenco, the cost structure remains very high. In such a scenario,
MERC is bound to determine tariff at a rate which is much higher than
the prevailing market rate. Resultantly, the consumers of MSEDCL are
paying the highest electricity tariff compared to all other states in
India,” VIA had alleged.
(06-08-14)
Comments
Post a Comment