HC issues notice to 2 members of KSERC

Desi94

Editor

posted on 12 years ago — updated on 1 second ago

37
views

Follow us:WhatsappFacebookTwitterTelegram.cls-1{fill:#4d4d4d;}.cls-2{fill:#fff;}Google NewsThe Kerala High Court on Friday issued notices to two members of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission on a Quo Warranto petition challenging their appointments.The petitioner K R Venugopalan Nair, of Alappuzha, argued that the two members -Parameswaran and Mathew George - have entertained intense acute and keen interest in the augmentation of the revenue of the KSEB, and they had actively participated in the process. While KSEB sought only Rs 1,546.4 crore hike in the tariff, the grant was made for `1676.84 crore. So Rs 130 crore more to the detriment of the consumers in the state was affected. The provision under section 85 (5)of the Electricity Act pointed that a member did not have any financial interest. The petitioner also argued that they would not have ordered a retrospective hike in the tariff after the consumer had already enjoyed the use of electricity at previous rates.first published:August 18, 2012, 10:52 ISTlast updated:August 18, 2012, 10:52 IST
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-a', container: 'taboola-below-article-thumbnails', placement: 'Below Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' });Latest News

The Kerala High Court on Friday issued notices to two members of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission on a Quo Warranto petition challenging their appointments.

The petitioner K R Venugopalan Nair, of Alappuzha, argued that the two members -Parameswaran and Mathew George - have entertained intense acute and keen interest in the augmentation of the revenue of the KSEB, and they had actively participated in the process. While KSEB sought only Rs 1,546.4 crore hike in the tariff, the grant was made for `1676.84 crore. So Rs 130 crore more to the detriment of the consumers in the state was affected. The provision under section 85 (5)of the Electricity Act pointed that a member did not have any financial interest. The petitioner also argued that they would not have ordered a retrospective hike in the tariff after the consumer had already enjoyed the use of electricity at previous rates.