Prayas analysis had shown that IPP costs are the major tariff drivers in the near future, hence, transparency about IPP documents is key to protecting public interest. On 7th October 2000, Prayas filed a petition seeking transparency [see below] of all contracts, clearances and commitments related to IPPs in Maharashtra (Case 8/2000). A follow-up letter  [see below] to MERC, written after two months, restates the importance of the issue and seeks early admission / hearing of the case. MERC sought comments from MSEB on the petition. MSEB also submitted some of the requested documents. The first hearing was held on 12th Jan 2001, when Prayas submitted a detailed list of documents requested [see below] to clarify the matter. MSEB reaffirmed its committed to transparency. Hence, the case was dismissed (MERC order 12th Jan 01). [see below] MSEB gave many more documents, not disclosed earlier, but it also withheld several key documents. On follow up with MSEB, we realised that the DPC had objected to disclosure of these documents. Hence, Prayas filled a separate petition challenging this and requesting MERC to direct MSEB to make available all the documents (including the once for which DPC had claimed confidentiality). Prayas Petition [see below] attached. Several hearings were held where MSEB said that it was contractually bound to maintain confidentiality. Prayas argued that it was consumer right to see all the documents wherein cost are committed on their behalf. The MERC gave an order on 31st July 2001, [see below] wherein it directed MSEB to make all documents available to Prayas. In-spite of this order from MERC, DPC warned MSEB of legal action / claim for damages if it gives documents to Prayas. After some legal correspondence between DPC and MSEB, finally these documents were made available to Prayas after considerable time.