A month after the Delhi High Court declined to issue a stay order on a CAG audit of the three power distribution companies in the city and asked the discoms to co-operate fully with the process, the Comptroller and Auditor General told the court on Monday that the discoms were not co-operating.
The counsel for the CAG informed a bench of Acting Chief Justice Badar Durrez Ahmad and Justice Siddharth Mridul that the Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd (TPDDL), BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd and BSES Yamuna Power Ltd had not provided the full documents sought for the audit.
The court was hearing an intra-court appeal of the three discoms, which have challenged the January 24 order of a single-judge bench, which not only refused to stall the CAG audit but also asked the discoms to co-operate with the top auditor by furnishing the details sought by it.
The submissions by CAG counsel Aman Lekhi were made during the hearing on a plea by the three discoms, seeking adjournment of their appeal against the single bench order on the ground that the Supreme Court was apprised of the matter and was to hear the matter on Wednesday. The bench has now posted the matter for hearing on March 24.
The CAG and the Delhi government opposed the plea, with advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the government, arguing that the plea by the discoms should be dismissed as the firms were “in contempt of the single bench order”.
The discoms had initially moved the High Court against the January 7 decision of the AAP government ordering the CAG audit, saying the top auditor was not empowered to scrutinise accounts of private companies.
The single bench had, however, refused to issue a stay on the process. The discoms then appealed to the division bench against the January 24 order of the single bench.
In the appeal, the discoms said the audit was ordered by the government with a “pre-determined mind”.
Meanwhile, TPDDL opposed the contention of the CAG and the Delhi government, saying it was “co-operating fully” with the top auditor in pursuance of the High Court’s direction.
“Out of the 33 requisitions by the auditor (CAG), TPDDL has already responded to 24. These 24 requisitions consist of 161 queries, of which 139 have been responded to. For the pending queries, owing to the voluminous nature of data of the requisitions, some amount of time is needed to compile and respond,” the