The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the Capital’s three power distribution companies -- BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, BSES Yamuna Power Limited and Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) -- to cooperate with the Comptroller and Auditor General’s auditing of their accounts in compliance with the court’s earlier order.
A Division Bench of Justices B.D. Ahmed and Siddharth Mridul passed the order on appeals by the three discoms against the earlier Single Bench order.
Justice Manmohan had on January 24 refused to stay a Delhi Government order asking the power distribution companies to get their accounts audited by the CAG.
However, the court had directed the auditor not to submit the report on these companies to the Delhi Government without its permission.
The Division Bench listed the appeals along with public interest litigation by a non-government organisation on May 1 for further hearing.
Meanwhile, the Deputy Controller and Auditor General of the CAG, Rakesh Jain, in a letter informed Delhi Chief Secretary Sanjay Kumar Srivastava that seven weeks after the audit of these companies began, the progress has been very tardy due to non-cooperation of the discoms.’’
Of the 103 requisitions made, complete information has been received in respect of only 26. In respect of others, information has either not been furnished or furnished partly, the letter said.
“The information sought pertains to capital expenditure, assets, utilisation, accounts, IT system, metering, billing and collection from consumers, tariff and regulatory matters, procure and sale of power’’, the CAG officer said in his letter to the Chief Secretary on March 20.
“These are vital for the duty entrusted to us. Submission of mere balance-sheet and profit and loss accounts does not serve any purpose unless they are backed up by trial balance, referral schedules, ledger accounts and final adjustment entries passed at the final stage of accounts’’, the letter stated.
Similarly, it said, officers had not been given complete access to the IT system of the discoms. BSES had given authorisation to 15 of 48 transaction codes for access to the CAG officers.
TPDDL had not given any access to its IT system. Partial disclosure amounted to non-disclosure and might lead to erroneous conclusions, the letter added.
The three companies argued that they were beyond the jurisdiction of the CAG.
