Delivering a severe blow, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently rejected the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission's (MERC) plea that no individual action can be taken against its office bearers holding them responsible for destruction of audio-video recordings of its hearing.
The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), which adjudicates on all matters concerning electricity, through its resolution dated September 4, 2018, decided that henceforth there will be no audio-video recording of the Commission's hearing and even the old recording preserved by it will be destroyed.
It had also announced that no recordings would be made available to anyone. Subsequently on September 5 it destroyed the recordings which were in its possession.
However MERC’s move was challenged by the activist Anil Vadapalliwar who filed a writ petition (No.129/2018) and the court stayed MERC’s decision on October 12, 2018. Vadapalliwar then filed another application (civil application No. 376/2019), under the Public Records Act 2005, requesting that his original petition be amended to include penal action against MERC office bearers, responsible for destruction of recording.
He argued that destruction of the record without the permission of the competent authority was a penal offence within the meaning of Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Record Act.
The court upheld his plea vide its directions given on February 14 and 20, 2019. However, MERC filed a civil application (No 492/2019), challenging the demand for action against its office bearers and pleaded that the court’s orders be recalled. It also stated that the order was passed by the court in its absence.
However, a bench comprising Justices P N Deshmukh and Rohit B Deo of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High court on March 25, rejected MERC’s plea for recall of the orders stating that “the demand is without substance and is rejected’.
In view of the court’s order the chairman, secretary and other office bearers of MERC should resign or should be asked to relinquish from their duty, Maharashtra Power Consumers’ Association, (MPCA) President and member of the MERC’s state advisory committee, Pratap Hogade said, adding that as per Section 86 (3) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, there should be total transparency in MERC’s dealings. When the proceedings were not recorded the then MERC Chairman V P Raja, had organised the hearing afresh on June 14, 2013, he recalled.
Besides, as per Sections 78 and 79 of the regulations framed by the MERC in 2004, it is essential that all the records are maintained properly and copies of the documents are given to concerned people on demand.
“Transparency is the buzzword in today’s times. Legislatures and Parliament also do live streaming of their proceedings. Even the SC has said that it is thinking of doing live streaming of its proceedings. But here the Commission had taken a retrograde step to kill transparency. The AV recordings have proved to be always useful in case of disputes as no further proof is required to prove the exact fact,” Hogade added.