RPPs case: Supreme Court seeks explanation from private power companies

30 Nov, 2010

The Supreme Court on Monday sought an explanation from private power companies on a report of Transparency International unveiling corruption in Rental Power Plants (RPPs) project till December 6.
A three-member bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Ghulam Rabbani and Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, was hearing a suo motu case along with other petitions regarding allegations of corruption in the RPPs contract and the government's decision to increase electricity tariff, especially when the supply was irregular.
Khawaja Tariq Rahim, counsel for Wapda and Pepco, told the apex court that the electricity at the rate of Rs 14 per unit would come into the system through RPPs. Chief Justice noted the electricity would cost the consumers at Rs 18 per unit.
The counsel for Wapda and Pepco said the government was already giving subsidy on the electricity and the consumers would get the electricity on the current rates. Justice Ramday said the burden of subsidy would ultimately fall on the consumers, because it would be given from the money of taxpayers.
The court directed the counsel to submit reply to a report of Transparency International pointing huge corruption in the contracts of RPPs. He, however, sought time for examining the report and preparing reply, which the court allowed and adjourned further hearing till December 6.
The court directed Rahim to prepare a complete synopsis of the RPPs and produce it before the court on next hearing, besides providing complete infrastructure of the RPPs. He was further directed to tell the court that how much money was spent on 19 RPPs. The Chief Justice asked him as to which necessitated the government to purchase the electricity on high rates, as its burden will ultimately shift to the general consumers. On last hearing, the court had observed that the report of Asian Development Bank (ADB) levelling serious allegations of corruption in the contract of RPPs would not be ignored while deciding the case.

Read Comments