* 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
Post a Comment