Uttarakhand’s Tube-Well Approval Lapses Point to Systemic Oversight Failures
Uttarakhand’s power regulator has uncovered a multi-year pattern of private tube-well (PTW) connections being approved without mandatory land-ownership documents. The findings stretch across seven distribution divisions and reveal how outdated rules, old software logic and weak supervision combined to create a long-running compliance gap inside UPCL.
What Sparked the Statewide Review
The case began with a single consumer complaint in Ramnagar.
The Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (UERC) soon discovered 88 faulty PTW approvals in that division alone. A broader review expanded the number to 315 PTW connections issued without valid land papers.
Instead of rejecting incomplete applications, field units relied on an old “triple-security” clause—something the UERC Supply Code, 2020 no longer permits for PTW consumers.
Outdated System Logic Still Driving Decisions
Executive Engineers from several divisions admitted that the RAPDRP software still followed pre-2020 workflows. If land documents weren’t uploaded, the system automatically generated a three-times security deposit. Field officers processed PTW cases on this basis, even though the Code had already removed that option.
UERC noted that these weren’t isolated errors. A three-year pattern across Ramnagar, Kashipur, Bazpur, Champawat, Sitarganj, Khatima and Rudrapur-II indicates systemic weaknesses in internal control and routine supervision.
Senior Layers Say Files Never Reached Them
Circle and zonal officers argued that PTW files are usually cleared at the divisional level and rarely escalate upward. UERC rejected this defence, saying that widespread non-compliance over years cannot occur without structural gaps in monitoring and accountability.
The order also calls out the Managing Director’s repeated absence from scheduled hearings, describing it as a “careless approach” to a matter involving serious violations of the Supply Code.
Why the Triple-Security Route Was Invalid From Day One
UERC’s clarification was firm: PTW consumers fall under Table 3.7 of the Supply Code, 2020, which does not allow the triple-security alternative. That route was meant only for certain LT categories—not PTW applicants.
As a result, all 315 PTW connections were found to have been issued in breach of the Code.
Refunds, Penalties and Cleanup Ahead
The regulator has indicated that excess security deposits collected may need to be refunded or adjusted. It is also weighing action under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which empowers monetary penalties for non-compliance.
More broadly, the case exposes long-standing issues: outdated software logic, weak documentation workflows and supervisory layers disconnected from ground-level approvals. UPCL now faces both operational cleanup and organisational accountability as the regulator moves towards enforcement.
For more: https://www.energylineindia.com/