ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Hyderabad
Dated: 18-09-2007
Present
Sri K. Swaminathan, Chairman
Sri
Surinder Pal, Member
Sri. R. Radha Kishen, Member
R.P.
No.1 of 2007
in
O.P.No.36
of 2006
Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd.
and
R.P.
No.2 of 2007
in
O.P.No.35
of 2006
Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd.
and
R.P.
No.3 of 2007
in
O.P.No.33
of 2006
Central Power Distribution
Company of A.P.Ltd.
and
R.P.
No.4 of 2007
in
O.P.No.34
of 2006
Eastern Power Distribution
Company of A.P.Ltd. ... Petitioners
These petitions coming on for hearing on 03.09.2007 in the presence of Sri P.R.Reddy, Director(Finance) on behalf of the Petitioner in RP No.3 of 2007; Sri O.Simhadri, Chief General Manager(RAC) & Sri A.V.Suryanarayana Rao, GM on behalf of the petitioner in RP No.4 of 2007; Sri K.Lingamurthy, DE(RAC) on behalf of the petitioner in RP No.1 of 2007; no representation on behalf of the petitioner in RP No.2 of 2007; Sri Suresh Chanda, IAS, Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh (for short, ‘GoAP’), IT&C Department and Commissioner, E-Seva; the consumer groups representatives and consumer rights activists Sri M.Thimma Reddy, Convenor, People’s Monitoring Group, Sri M.Venugopala Rao, Special Correspondent, Praja Sakti and Sri A.Punna Rao, Chartered Engineer, and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Commission delivered the following common :
As the relief claimed in all
the four petitions is the same, the said petitions are disposed of by this
common order.
2.
In
brief, the common averments mentioned in the review petitions are as follows:
(a) In the Retail Supply Tariffs Order dated 20.03.2007 for FY
2007-08 in OPs No.33 to 36 of 2007 passed by the Commission, all the four
Distribution Licensees, the petitioners herein, were directed to stop bill collection through e-seva centres with
effect from 01.04.2007, vide Directive No.11.
(b) As per the e-governance initiative, GoAP established e-seva
centres in all towns and district headquarters to facilitate payment of utility
bills at one location for benefit of consumers. Under the e-governance facility, payments can be made online
through Andhra Pradesh Online website from anywhere and anytime.
(c) In view of benefits accruing to the consumers as well as to
the petitioners herein, the petitioners entrusted the work of electricity bill
collection to e-seva. In view of the
above, departmental cash counters of the petitioners in the vicinity of e-seva
centres were closed from the year 2003 onwards and the collection staff were
re-deployed long back. Some of the
staff retired from service and the resultant vacancies were not filled up, as
the bill collection through e-seva was found beneficial.
(d) GoAP had fixed Rs.5 per transaction for collection of
electricity bills through e-seva. After the issue of the Commission’s
above-mentioned Directive No.11, after negotiations between the Commissioner,
e-seva and the petitioners herein, it is agreed to reduce service charge from
Rs.5 to Rs.2 per transaction. In view
of the above, it is prayed that the Commission may review the said Directive
No.11, allow the petitioners to collect electricity bills through e-seva @ Rs.2 per transaction from 01.04.2007 onwards and pass such other order or orders as
the Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The Secretary, Information Technology &Communication
Department, GoAP, Hyderabad, in his
Lr.No.DC/IT&C/ EDS/07 dated 09.05.2007 addressed to the Secretary of the
Commission explained the objective of delivering quality citizen services as a
core e-governance initiative for bringing in accountability and reduce drudgery
in seeking services required by innumerable consumers across the State. The facility of the e-seva offered by the
Government are also beneficial to different departments in terms of reduction
in cost of infrastructure facilities required, risk in handing cash, etc. The quality of services rendered by e-seva
centres is far better than the services extended by alternate delivery
channels. Therefore, it is prayed that
e-seva may be permitted to collect electricity bills of the petitioners herein
at revised transaction rate and further requested that IT&C Department,
GoAP, may be given an opportunity to put forward its case in connection with
review petitions filed by the petitioners herein.
4. Notices were sent to the petitioners herein, the Secretary,
IT&C and the objectors/ consumer groups/consumer rights activists who had
raised the issue with regard to expenditure on e-seva at the time of fixing
retail supply tariffs by the Commission for FY 2007-08, informing them of the
scheduled hearing on the subject matter before the Commission on
03.09.2007. That apart, public notice was also given in Telugu and
English daily newspapers intimating that the Commission proposes to hear all
the persons desirous of being heard in connection with the review petitions
filed by the petitioners herein.
5. On the date of hearing, identical
submissions were made on behalf of the petitioners in R.P.Nos.1, 3 and 4 of
2007, stating that collection of electricity bills through e-seva centres is
advantageous to the petitioners. As
e-seva collects bills online and consolidated amount collected by it is paid to
the petitioners, the petitioners are not required to maintain registers
themselves. Otherwise, it is necessary for the petitioners to maintain several
registers for collection of electricity bills. In such manual collection, it is
often found that there is lot of mismatch with regard to amounts collected from
different consumers leading to financial impropriety and trouble. Moreover, the
calculations made by petitioners herein reveal that cost of collection of
electricity bills through e-seva is less than the cost required to be incurred
by the petitioners for such
collection. The collection
centres of the petitioners are not sufficient to cater to the need of
consumers. At the request of the
petitioners herein, the IT&C department, GoAP, had reduced collection
charge from Rs.5 to Rs.2 per transaction.
Therefore, it was prayed on behalf of the petitioners that the
Commission may review the Directive No.11 issued by it in its Tariff Order
dated 20.03.2007 and permit the petitioners herein to continue collection of
electricity bills through e-seva from 01.04.2007 onwards. On behalf of the petitioner in RP No.4 of
2007, written submissions were
filed.
6. The Secretary, IT&C, GoAP, who is also the Commissioner, e-seva, submitted that e-seva services were started in the year
2001. The said services now cover
several towns across the State, where utility bills, including electricity
bills are collected under one roof harnessing the potential of information and
communication technology. Services offered through e-Seva by the GoAP are
advanced and convenient to citizens as well as to the departments
concerned. All the amounts received
towards electricity charges by GoAP through e-seva are consolidated and paid to
the petitioner concerned through a single cheque at the end of the day. Otherwise, petitioners have to deposit the
cheques received by them in banks and
are required to pay handling charges to banks for different cheques. A study conducted by World Bank in two
countries, including in India, revealed that
waiting time for payment of utility bills was reduced with the advent of
e-governance and because of quality of services offered under
e-governance, services rendered through
e-seva centres are preferred by several citizens in the State. Moreover, in e-seva services, there is no
possibility for pilferage, malpractice etc., as it is web-based online
system. The Secretary, IT&C and
Commissioner, e-seva also filed written submissions.
7. On behalf of People’s Monitoring Group on Electricity
Regulation, its convener Sri M.Timma Reddy, submitted that revised charge of
Rs.2 per transaction is still high.
Many of the e-seva collection centres are located in the premises of one
or the other petitioners herein and the petitioners are not being paid rent for
occupation of their premises. Further,
e-seva services are not efficient, economical or competitive. The waiting period at e-seva centres for
utilising services by different consumers is also long, sometimes for more than
one hour. Many a time, it is found that the servers in e-seva
centres are down. There were several
complaints that money collected for one particular service were credited to
other service. For example, money collected towards electricity bills was found
credited towards water charges.
Contract persons collect bills from the doorsteps of the consumers of
electricity at a service charge of just Re.0-75 and some organisations collect
electricity bills with service charge of Re.1.
Moreover, e-seva service is not selected through competitive process. For all these reasons, it is requested that
collection of electricity bills @ Rs.2/- per transaction through e-seva as
proposed by the petitioners may not be allowed and the petitioners may be
directed to revive the earlier practices of bill collection. Sri Thimma Reddy also filed written
submissions.
8. Sri M.Venugopala Rao, Special Correspondent, Prajasakti, a
Telugu daily, submitted that voluntary
organisations like Lions Club are charging Rs.1-25 per transaction. Such voluntary organisations are collecting
electricity bills from the consumers at their homes. On the other hand, e-seva charges Rs.2 per transaction and
collects bills from the consumers who come to e-seva centres. Therefore, it is requested that the
Commission may examine the average cost per transaction for collection of
electricity bills by the cash centres of petitioners themselves and compare the
same with that of e-seva and voluntary organisations in the State and whichever
mode of collection is found to be lower, that very mode of collection may be
permitted by the Commission to be adopted by the petitioners. Alternatively, a process of competitive
bidding may be adopted to select
agencies for collection of electricity bills.
Till such time, the present arrangement of collection of electricity
bills through e-seva at Rs.2 per transaction may be continued as proposed by
the petitioners. Sri M.Venugopala Rao
also filed written submissions.
9. After perusing the record and hearing the submissions of the
parties concerned, the common point that arises for consideration of the
Commission is that whether the Directive No.11 issued by the Commission in its
Tariff Order dated 20.03.2007 be reviewed and the petitioners enabled to
collect electricity bills through e-seva centres at the rate of Rs.2 per
transaction.
10. At the time of the public hearing on 03.09.07, the following
related issues have also come up for consideration:
Firstly, why at
all the function of collecting bills from consumers should be entrusted to
e-seva and its allied organizations?
Why not encourage other organizations to take up the work, in
competition with e-seva etc., which might result in better service to the
public as well as the petitioners?
Secondly, whether the price charged by e-seva etc., of Rs.2 per bill is
not too high, and whether it can be reduced?
Thirdly what is the reasonable compensation that should be paid by
petitioners to the e-seva etc., for collecting their bills?
The 2nd and third issues are
interrelated. If competition can be
fostered, and different organizations step into the field, it might well result
in reduction in the cost to the petitioners, of outsourcing bill collection.
11. It is necessary to make some attempt to study the manner in
which outsourcing of bill collection is being done by the petitioners. Different organizations are involved in this
exercise. Firstly, we have e-seva
centres which are run by the IT Department of the State Government. Secondly, the RSDPs are maintained by a
joint venture between the State Government and a private service provider. Thirdly, the Rajeev Internet Villages (RIVs)
provide the service and are maintained by two private companies which have an
agreement with the petitioners.
Fourthly, there are some contractors who have been appointed by a
District level society under the management of a Joint Collector of the
District.
12. The procedure followed for collection and accounting differs
in each case. In the e-seva centres,
there is a district level data centre which has a Tahsildar / Deputy Tahsildar,
as Admin. officer and various sub-district centres. All these centres are connected online to the servers of the
petitioners which enables rapid transactions, and updating of information. The e-seva centres are open till 7.00 o’clock
in the evening and thus provide good service to the public. The fact that they are online and connected
to the petitioners’ servers makes transactions relatively easy to account for. They simplify the maintenance of accounts by
the distribution companies, the petitioners herein.
13. The main difference between the e-seva centres and the other
centres which collect bills on behalf of the petitioners, relates to online
connectivity. The e-seva centres are
connected online to the servers of the petitioners, whereas the RSDPs, Rajeev
Internet centres and the contractors appointed by the District level societies
are offline. In the case of RSDPs, some consumer information is available on
the computer of the contractor, and there is periodical transfer of information
from his system to that of the APonline through a dialup connection. The consumer information available with the
RSDPs and the contractors of the District level societies, is much less. However, in the case of RSDPs, there is
periodical transfer of information from the collection centre to the server of
the service provider. In the case of
Rajeev Internet village centres and the District level society centres, there
appear to be differences in the procedure for transfer, and updating of the
database in the main service provider.
In the case of District level societies, the supervision and control
mechanism over the collection centres by the society, is not clearly defined.
14. In order to understand the manner in which different types of
collection centres are functioning, the Director(Engg.) of the Commission was
requested to constitute a team of officers to visit some centres in each
petitioner’s area and study their functioning and submit a report. The Director(Engg.) has submitted his
report. The said report would disclose that:
15. After careful consideration, the Commission accepts the
recommendations of the Director(Engg.).
As can be seen from the foregoing discussion, and the report of the
Director(Engg.), the service provided
by the four types of centres mentioned earlier varies widely in quality. It is, therefore unjustified to charge the
same rates for the service provided by all of them. The e-seva centres provide superior service, both to the consumer
as well as to the petitioners. The
other three types of centres are inferior to the e-seva centres in this
respect. There is no justification for
paying the same amount of Rs.2 per consumer to these centres.
16. One issue that crops up is the costing of services provided by
the four different types of collection centres. Even in the e-seva centres which provide superior service, there
is no proper price-discovery mechanism which may be relied upon. There is a
need for the petitioners to evolve a procedure for this purpose.
17. Conclusion:
The following orders are issued:
(1)
The
petitioners are permitted to continue the bill collection activity through
e-seva centres, as at present till conclusion of the tariff year 2007-08.
(2)
The
RSDP, RIV and District level society should go online in the same manner as
e-seva centres before conclusion of the tariff year 2007-08.
(3)
The
EROs should be vigilant and keep a daily and weekly track of the RSDP, RIV and
District level society centres to monitor the volume and value of the total
transactions done for quick detection and elimination of any irregularities, as
recommended by the Director (Engg.).
(4)
The
petitioners must ensure that a price-discovery procedure is evolved, and
submitted to the Commission for approval before 31st January, 2008.
(5)
The
RSDP centres, RIV centres and District level society centres may be permitted
to continue to collect electricity bills from consumers till the end of tariff
year 2007-08. However, these centres
may not be paid more than Rs.1.50 per consumer, as the services they provide
are inferior to these provided by the e-seva centres.
(6)
The
petitioners may encourage banks / other agencies to provide bill collection
services, if these are found to be less expensive and more efficient than the
e-seva centres.
18. All these Review Petitions are disposed off accordingly.
This
order is corrected and signed on 18th day of September, 2007.
|
Sd/- |
Sd/- |
Sd/- |
|
(R.RADHA KISHEN) |
(SURINDER PAL) |
(K.SWAMINATHAN) |
|
MEMBER |
MEMBER |
CHAIRMAN |
CERTIFIED COPY