YAMUNANAGAR | PEN OF DEMOCRACY NEWS DESK

Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) state spokesperson Arjun Sudhail has launched a sharp attack on the Haryana government over the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission’s decision to grant Eleven Power Private Limited a parallel electricity distribution licence for 25 years. He alleged that the decision reflected an anti-public approach pursued by the BJP governments at the state and central levels, potentially placing private profit ahead of public interest.

Sudhail accused the regulatory commission of failing to discharge its statutory responsibilities and alleged that it was acting under the influence of the state government. He argued that the arrangement could lead to the privatisation of profits while shifting financial burdens and risks onto the public. The INLD, he said, fully supports electricity employees’ proposed strike aimed at getting the licence cancelled.

Questions Raised Over Company Valuation

The INLD spokesperson questioned the financial credentials cited in connection with the licence. According to the figures presented by him, the company had a total capital of only Rs 1 crore but was granted a licence linked to a project valued at Rs 4,700 crore. He further claimed that an assumed market valuation of Rs 4,085 crore had been accepted for the company, whereas its audited book value stood at just Rs 95 crore.

Sudhail argued that these figures warranted serious scrutiny in view of the scale and long-term implications of the licence. His remarks form part of the party’s broader objection to allowing a private operator to enter electricity distribution through a parallel licensing arrangement.

Demand for Immediate Action Under Section 108

Reacting to statements by Energy Minister Anil Vij and Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini that the government would challenge the order through an appeal, Sudhail described the proposed course of action as inadequate and misleading to the public.

He urged the Chief Minister to invoke Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and issue clear written policy directions in the public interest. According to Sudhail, such directions should be used to halt the process of granting parallel electricity distribution licences and address the concerns raised by employees, engineers, farmers and rural consumers.

The INLD spokesperson maintained that the government should take a direct policy decision rather than relying solely on the prospect of legal proceedings. He called for immediate steps to prevent the dispute from escalating into a statewide confrontation.

Cites INLD Government’s 1999 Decision

Recalling the history of power-sector reforms in Haryana, Sudhail said that in 1998 the government had faced pressure to privatise the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam in connection with conditions associated with a World Bank assistance programme worth US$600 million.

He claimed that the INLD government reversed that decision in 1999 because it believed public-sector institutions should serve citizens rather than operate primarily to generate profits for private companies.

Drawing a comparison with the current controversy, Sudhail said electricity distribution was an essential public service and that decisions affecting its structure needed to account for the interests of consumers and employees. He warned that the parallel licence could affect job security and service stability for electricity engineers and workers, while potentially increasing the financial burden on farmers and rural consumers.

Public Investment and the Future of Power Distribution

Sudhail also argued that the decision undermined the sacrifices made to restore the financial health of public electricity distribution companies. He alleged that public money had been used to strengthen these utilities during periods of financial stress, only for their position to be weakened by a licensing arrangement that could affect their long-term viability.

He said the government needed to explain how the proposed parallel distribution system would protect public investment, safeguard employees’ service conditions and ensure that farmers and ordinary consumers were not exposed to additional costs.

The INLD’s objections, he said, were rooted in the need to protect the public electricity system and preserve the role of state-owned distribution utilities. These concerns, according to him, should be addressed transparently before the dispute develops further.

Calls for Dialogue to Avert Statewide Strike

Expressing solidarity with electricity engineers, employee organisations and farmers’ groups, Sudhail demanded that the state government issue immediate policy directions under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to facilitate cancellation of the licence granted to the private company.

He also called on the government to begin meaningful discussions with the Joint Struggle Front to resolve the dispute and avert a statewide strike. Sudhail said dialogue and a clear policy response were necessary to address the concerns of those opposing the licensing decision.

Warning that the INLD would continue to oppose the move, the spokesperson said the party was prepared to pursue the issue through legal, technical and political means, from the courts to the streets, in what he described as a struggle to protect the public electricity distribution system.