MSEDCL dubs CCI order ‘one-sided’

* Also states in media that MSEDCL functions as per the directions of MERC
Staff Reporter
A day after Competition Commission of India (CCI) ordered probe against ‘abuse of dominant position’ by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), the latter has dubbed CCI order as ‘one-sided’.
In a brief press release issued by its Deputy Chief Public Relations Officer (Nagpur Urban Circle), MSEDCL accused CCI of ‘not offering any opportunity to MSEDCL to present its side’. “MSEDCL has not been informed officially in this regard,” added the release. Further, it stated that MSEDCL functioned as per the norms prescribed by Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) from time to time.
Interestingly, in the brief press note, there is no word about the issue of ‘abuse of dominant position’ and ‘denial of market access to other efficient and economical power generating companies’, the allegations made by Vidarbha Industries Association (VIA) in its petition before the CCI. On Wednesday, CCI had directed its Director General to conduct probe into the charges against MSEDCL, while hearing the petition of VIA.
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). In the petition, 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.
In its order, CCI had 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. Besides, CCI had 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,” CCI had observed.
Further, CCI stated it clearly that denial of open access to others ‘shut the door on competition in the distribution market,’ and that the consumers were left with no choice but to keep buying power at whatever rate the distribution company supplied. 

(07-08-14)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Chanda boy Dr Vipin Itankar is UPSC topper in State

Hinganghat: Here rests the great surveyor of India...

Eknath Ranade, the man with ‘Rock’ solid determination