PESHAWAR, Aug 30: Differences between NWFP and Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) have resurfaced once again over the contentious net hydel profit issue as the Authority has disputed the provincial government’s recently made Rs298bn claim against it.

In a recently sent letter to Wapda chairman Lt-Gen Zulfiqar, the NWFP government has laid claim to over Rs298bn arrears against the Authority on account of net hydel profit share.

In response to the provincial government’s claim against it, Wapda has taken the stand that the province has been made excess payment of Rs8.237bn during the period from 1991-92 to 2001-02.

“The amount accruing to NWFP for the years 1991-92 to 2001-02 was worked out to Rs57,425m whereas the NWFP has been paid Rs65,662m during this period which is Rs8.237bn in excess of the amount the province should have got at the rate of Rs6bn per annum,” contained a press release issued by Wapda.

According to the press release, the Authority has also rejected NWFP’s stand that the province was entitled to get net hydel profit from Wapda since 1973-74 taking the stand that it [Wapda] is only liable to pay net hydel profit to the province from 1991-92 in line with a decision of the Council of Common Interest (CCI).

However, according to some official documents available with this scribe, the CCI in its meeting on January 12, 1991 had decided that “the methodology of calculation of net profits from bulk generation at hydel stations proposed by A.G.N. Kazi committee should be adopted for the past and future calculations”.

The Wapda spokesman has taken the stand that the province is entitled to get Rs6bn fixed amount every year in line with a decision of the federal government.

At the same time, the spokesman adopted the stand that net hydel profit payable to NWFP is worked out on the basis of Kazi committee formula.

Relying on the Kazi committee’s formula, the current National Finance Commission has projected the NWFP to get Rs9.423bn in 1997-98, Rs10.466bn in 1998-99, Rs11.624bn in 1999-2000, Rs12.899bn in 2000-01 and Rs14.328bn in 2001-02.

Against that the province received Rs6bn every year during the five-year term of the current NFC ended on June 30, 2002.

Similarly, Wapda has also rejected NWFP’s stand that the net profit should be calculated on the basis of Authority’s gross revenue generated from the hydel stations situated in the province.

In its press release faxed to Dawn, the Authority adopted the stand that “Under article 161(2) of the Constitution only Sale of Power (SOP) and Fuel Adjustment Surcharge (FAS) is covered for calculating net hydel profit”.

The article 161(2) contained that “the net profits earned by the federal government, or any undertaking established or administered by the federal government from the bulk generation of power at a hydro-electric station shall be paid to the province in which the hydro-electric station is situated”.

The NWFP government, in its letter sent during the second fortnight of August, has taken the stand the net hydel profit should be calculated by taking the surcharge and additional surcharge as parts of the gross revenue generated through sale of power of Tarbela dam project.

NWFP government’s stand, said the official sources talked by this scribe, that surcharge and additional surcharge were also part of the power tariff was based on a judgment of the Supreme Court pertaining to an industrial unit of Gadoon Amanzai industrial estate.

The court, while deciding the Gadoon Textile vs Wapda S.C.M.R. 1997, had declared that “by majority view all the appeals and petitions for leave against the impugned judgment of Peshawar High Court and Lahore High Court are dismissed with no order as to costs, with the observation that consumers in G.A.I.E. who are still enjoying 50 per cent concession in the electricity, shall be entitled to the same on surcharge and additional surcharge as they are part of the tariff”.

Interestingly, during the course of proceedings of the Gadoon Amanzai industrial unit’s case, Wapda had taken the position - reflected at page 684 of the judgment (copy of which also available with Dawn) - that “the surcharge and additional surcharge though shown as separate items in electricity bills issued to consumers but in substance they are part of the electricity tariff and hence are intra-vires”.