before the haryana electricity regulatory … · 1 | p a g e before the haryana electricity...
TRANSCRIPT
1 | P a g e
BEFORE THE HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AT PANCHKULA
Case No. HERC/PRO-27 of 2016
Date of Hearing : 06.01.2017
Date of Order : 17.02.2017
In the Matter of Application seeking amendment in Regulation 73 (2) of HERC (Terms and Conditions for
determination of tariff from Renewable Energy Sources, Renewable Purchase Obligation
and Renewable Energy Certificate) Regulations, 2010 in view of the Orders passed by
the Hon’ble APTEL in Appeal no. 90 of 2013 filed by PURI OIL MILLS VS HPPC AND
OTHERS dated 09.04.2014 and subsequent order in Appeal No. 183 OF 2015 filed by
STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT LIMITED VS HERC & HPPC dated 15.03.2016.
Petitioner Gemco Energy Limited, Faridabad
V/s.
Respondents Haryana Power Purchase Centre, Panchkula
Present
On behalf of the Petitioner
1. Sh. R.K. Jain, Counsel
On behalf of the Respondent
1. Sh. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate 2. Sh. H.P. Sharma, SE, Commercial, HPPC. 3. Sh. Rajiv Mishra, Xen, HPPC. 4. Sh. Randhir Singh, AE, HPPC.
Quorum
Shri Jagjeet Singh, Chairman
Shri M.S. Puri, Member
Shri Debashish Majumdar, Member
ORDER
Brief Background of the Case
1. The Petitioner, M/s. Gemco Energy Limited has set up Biomass based power
plant in village Dinod, Kausambhi Road, Bhiwani, of 8 MW. The said power plant
2 | P a g e
was commissioned on 23.08.2013.
2. The Petitioner in its submissions, has cited the Commission’s Orders/Regulations
on the issue of levy of ‘Wheeling charges’ as under:-
a) That the Commission’s Order dated 15.05.2007 regarding Renewable Energy
Tariff & Other issues for FY 2007-08 to 2012-13 on the issue of ‘wheeling
charges’ provide as under:-
Wheeling Charges:
The wheeling charges shall be levied @ 2% of the energy fed to the grid
irrespective of the distance from the generating stations.
b) The Commission’s Order dated 24.12.2010 referred to its Memo. No.
HERC/PPA/Solar/SV/10/1558 dated 20.08.2010 wherein it was clarified as
under:
The metering will be done at generators premises / sub-station (Clause 4.1.4)
and no wheeling charges shall be applicable.
c) Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for
determination of Tariff from Renewable Energy Sources, Renewable Purchase
Obligation and Renewable Energy Certificates) Regulations, 2010:
The issue of wheeling charges was not specifically covered under these
Regulations.
d) Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for
determination of Tariff from Renewable Energy Sources, Renewable Purchase
Obligation and Renewable Energy Certificates) Regulations, 2010 (1st
Amendment), Regulations, 2011, inserted a new Regulation 73 in the main
Regulations, which read as follows,
“73. Grid connectivity and wheeling charges –
(1) The State Transmission Utility or the transmission licensee other than STU
or the distribution licensee, as the case may be, shall bear the cost of EHV /
HV transmission line up to a distance of 10 KM from the interconnection point.
In case the distance between the interconnection point and point of grid
3 | P a g e
connectivity is more than 10 KMs then cost of the transmission line for the
distance beyond the 10 KMs shall be shared equally between the renewable
energy developer and the licensee.
(2) Unless otherwise exempted by the Commission the wheeling charges shall
be levied @ 2% of energy fed to the grid by the renewable energy developer
in case the power is purchased by the distribution licensee. In all other cases
wheeling charges or transmission charges, as the case may be, shall be levied
at the rates determined by the Commission from time to time.
e) That the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions
for determination of Tariff from Renewable Energy Sources, Renewable
Purchase Obligation and Renewable Energy Certificates) Regulations, 2010
(3rd Amendment), Regulations, 2014, inserted a proviso below Regulation
72(2), which read as follows:-
Provided that the RE Project Developers shall have the option to pay of the
actual cost of construction of transmission line (as on date of commissioning)
up to a distance of 10 KM from the interconnection point to HVPNL / Discoms,
as the case may be, in full or twelve equal monthly installments without any
interest cost if the re – payment is made in a staggered manner over a period
of 12 months and in the intervening period HVPNL/Discoms shall continue to
deduct 2% of the energy fed into the grid by the RE Generator. Once the
entire amount has been paid off, levy of wheeling charges @ 2% shall be
discontinued. This shall be applicable to the RE Projects already
commissioned as well as the future projects. However, those who do not opt
for this option shall continue to pay 2% of energy fed by them into the grid as
wheeling charge.”
f) That the Commission vide its Order dated 13.08.2014, determined Generic
Tariff for Renewable Energy Projects commissioned during FY2014-15 and
took notice of the order of Hon’ble APTEL dated 09.04.2014 while considering
the issue of wheeling charges. Relevant portion dealing with the subject of
wheeling charges is reproduced hereunder:-
“6.1 Wheeling Charges:
4 | P a g e
The wheeling charges shall be as per HERC RE Regulations, 2010 as amended from time to time. The Commission notes that the Hon’ble APTEL, in an appeal filed by Puri Oil Mills, has passed order setting aside the wheeling charges. However, Hon’ble APTEL’s in a number of judgements has held that Regulations notified by Electricity Regulatory Commissions are not a matter of appeal and the same is a subject matter of judicial review in a court of competent jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the Commission shall re-visit the issue of wheeling charges in the case of RE Projects while reviewing the HERC RE Regulations, 2010.”
g) Meanwhile, M/s Star Wire (India) Vidyut Ltd. filed Petition No. HERC/PRO-52
of 2014 seeking amongst other reliefs, the refund of wheeling charges in line
with the order passed by Hon’ble APTEL in the case of Puri Oil Mills in Appeal
No. 90 of 2013. The Commission dismissed the Petition vide order dated
08.12.2014 with the following observations,
“In conclusion, the Commission holds that undoubtedly the wheeling charges recovered by the respondent from the petitioner are valid just and legal keeping in view the provision of regulations 73 (2) of the RE Regulations 1st Amendment, dated 05.09.2011. There is no scope for waiver and hence the same are not liable to be refunded to the petitioner.”
h) Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for
determination of Tariff from Renewable Energy Sources, Renewable Purchase
Obligation and Renewable Energy Certificates) (4th Amendment),
Regulations, 2015, introduced certain changes. The relevant extract from this
notification has been reproduced below:
“(2) These Regulations shall extend to all the RE Projects commissioned / to be commissioned in FY 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 in the State of Haryana. (3) For the existing projects commissioned during FY 2013-14 onwards, the revised norms shall be applicable prospectively from the date of notification of these Regulations unless provided otherwise in these Regulations. For the period prior to the date of notification, existing norms as per Principal Regulations shall be applicable for such projects. 21. Amendment of Regulation 73(2) of the of the Principal Regulations:- The Regulation 73(2) of the Principal Regulations shall be substituted by the following Regulation:- “(2) The Wheeling Charges shall not be leviable on the Renewable Energy Generators from the date of notification of these Regulations, if the entire energy injected into the grid is purchased by the distribution licensee. Provided the delivery point of power is the switchyard of the power plant of the IPP and the metering point is also the inter-connection point i.e. the point where the switchyard of the power plant connects with the power evacuation line of the licensee(s).
Provided further that wheeling charge and transmission charge at the rate determined by the Commission from time to time shall be levied in case the
5 | P a g e
power is supplied to a third party i.e. other than the distribution licensee(s) in Haryana.”
i) Commission issued consequential order dated 09.10.2015 arising from
Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for
determination of Tariff from Renewable Energy Sources, Renewable Purchase
Obligation and Renewable Energy Certificates) (4th Amendment),
Regulations, 2015, for the projects commissioned / to be commissioned in the
FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 and relevant extract of the same
regarding wheeling charges to be recovered from Renewable Energy Projects
is given as under:
“Accordingly w.e.f. 12th August, 2015 no wheeling charge shall be levied for the RE Projects fulfilling amended Regulations 73(2) read with first proviso. “
j) The Petitioner submitted that although with the above order, the Commission
stopped recovery of wheeling charges w.e.f. 12.08.2015 but the charges
already recovered prior to that date have not been addressed/refunded.
3. The Petitioner has cited the Hon’ble APTEL’s Orders regarding Wheeling charges
as under:-
a) Hon’ble APTEL vide order dated 09.04.2014 in the case of M/s Puri Oil Mills
(Appeal No. 90 of 2013 dated 24.12.2012) granted relief to the Appellant. The
relevant portion of the said order read as follows,
“… the PPA has provision (Article 11 ) for Wheeling and Banking, if at a later stage there is mutual agreement the parties agree for third party sale by the Appellant subject to the approval of the State Commission and in such case the Appellant and the third party shall enter into a Wheeling and Banking agreement. We feel that the wheeling charges will be payable by the Appellant only when it supplies power to a third party, which is not the case. Thus we hold that wheeling charges are not leviable on the Appellant for the energy supplied to the Respondent No. 1 for utilization by the distribution licensee. Accordingly, the distribution licensee will refund amount wrongly deducted as wheeling charges to the Appellant within 45 days of communication of this order. In case of delay in making payment beyond 45 days simple interest @12% per annum will be payable to the Appellant….”.
The order further read as follows, “ii) The Respondent No. 1 has wrongly levied wheeling charges @ 2% from the Appellant whereas no wheeling charges were leviable for supply of energy by the Appellant to the distribution licensees. Accordingly, the
6 | P a g e
Respondent no. 1 has been directed to refund the amount deducted from the bills of the Appellant towards wheeling charges to the Appellant within 45 days of communication of this order. In case of delay in refunding the amount due to the Appellant beyond 45 days simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum will be payable by the Respondent no. 1 to the Appellant”.
HPPC filed Appeal No. 23940/2014 under S.125 of the Electricity Act, 2003
before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the above order of Hon’ble
APTEL. The Appeal was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 08.10.2014.
b) M/s Star Wire (India) Vidyut Ltd., aggrieved by the Order of the Commission
dated 08.12.2014 mentioned at 2.g above, approached Hon’ble APTEL vide
Appeal No. 183 of 2015. Hon’ble APTEL decided the matter vide order dated
15.03.2016 and the operative part of the order reads as follows:-
“(i) We set aside the impugned order.
(ii) In tune with the judgments of this Tribunal in Damodar Valley
Corporation, M/s. Himalaya International Ltd. and M/s.
Rohit Ferro Tech Ltd., we overlook Regulation 73(2) of the
RE Regulations (1st Amendment) and hold that in view of the
judgment of this Tribunal in M/s. Puri Oil Mills Ltd. and in
view of the definition of term “wheeling” incorporated in
Section 2(76) of the said Act, levying wheeling charges on the
Appellant is illegal. We further hold that the Appellant is not
liable to pay wheeling charges.
(iii) We direct HPPC to refund the amount deducted from the bills
of the Appellant towards wheeling charges. The said amount
should be refunded within a period of 60 days from today,
failing which the said amount shall carry simple interest at
12% per annum till payment.
(iv) The above direction be also treated as relaxation from
payment of wheeling charges by exempting the Appellant
under Regulation 69 of the HERC (Terms and Conditions for
determination of Tariff from Renewable Energy Sources,
Renewable Purchase Obligation and Renewable Energy
Certificate) Regulations, 2010.”
That the Hon’ble APTEL deliberated the need for relaxing Regulation 73(2)
of the RE Regulations exercising powers vested with it under Regulations 69 of
these RE Regulations. In this connection relevant extract from the order passed
by Hon’ble APTEL in Appeal No. 183 of 2015 is reproduced below:-
7 | P a g e
“26. It is true that power to relax is a discretionary power and has to
be exercised judicially and only when the circumstances call for its
exercise. In our opinion, in this case, the circumstances did call for
its exercise. The State Commission should not have ignored this
Tribunal’s judgment in M/s. Puri Oil Mills Ltd. The State
Commission was not called upon to decide the validity of Regulation
73(2). That would be in teeth of the Supreme Court’s judgment in
PTC India. The State Commission should have merely relaxed
Regulation 73(2) in deference to M/s. Puri Oil Mills Ltd. and having
regard to definition of the term “wheeling” contained in the said Act,
it should have waived the wheeling charges. Such exercise of
discretionary power to relax would have been a judicial exercise. By
not exercising the discretionary power to relax, the State Commission
has caused injustice.”
4. The Petitioner has prayed that in view of the above facts and circumstances; the
Commission may-
a) Direct the Respondent to refund the wheeling charges deducted from the bills
of the Petitioner since the date of commissioning of its Power plants till the
date when the Commission granted exemption from the payment of wheeling
charges by the RE Projects (12.08.2015) vide its order dated 09.10.2015.
b) Direct the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner interest @ 12% p.a. for the
period of illegal withholding of the due amount in line with the order passed by
Hon’ble APTEL.
c) To relax Regulation 73(2) of the RE Regulations in deference to M/s Puri Oil
Mills Ltd., under powers vested under Regulations 69 of these Regulations as
observed by Hon’ble APTEL in its order dated 15.03.2016.
Proceedings in the Case
5. The respondent submitted its written reply to the above petition with copy to the
Petitioner and prayed that instant Petition is bad in law and liable to be dismissed,
on the following grounds:-
a) The respondent has been acting strictly in accordance with the Regulations
and Notifications issued by the Commission and there has been no violation or
breach thereof.
8 | P a g e
b) The amendments of the Regulations have been made applicable prospectively
and have not been made enforceable retrospectively. Therefore, the
respondent has acted in accordance with the directions of the Commission
and stopped recovering of wheeling charges w.e.f. 12.08.2015 i.e. the date of
notification of 4th amendment to HERC (RE) Regulations, exempting RE
generators from levy of wheeling charges, if the entire energy injected into the
grid is purchased by the distribution licensee.
c) The benefits of charges recovered have already been figured and featured in
the tariff determination. The refund of charges would invariably have a
reflection upon the tariff and also call for recovery from the consumers and it
will also cause augmentation and enrichment of the Petitioner at the cost of
the consumers.
d) HPPC is not a distribution licensee and is merely a procurement agency on
behalf of the distribution licensee.
e) The Order dated 08.10.2014 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court is a simplicitor
dismissal.
6. The Petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by HPPC on 06.01.2017, denying all
averments/contentions of the Respondent and reiterated the submissions made in
its petition under consideration of the Commission. Additionally, the Petitioner had
submitted as under:-
a) The Respondent is acting on behalf of the Distribution Licensees as covered
under clause 11 of the Haryana Government Notification of 11.04.2008. The
Respondent is responsible for day to day procurement of power and related
issues. All the actions taken by the Respondent is vicarious liability of the
Distribution Licensees as it is acting on behalf of the Distribution Licensees.
The view taken by the Respondent is also negated by its own action in acting
as Appellant or Respondent in various Appeals filed in Hon’ble APTEL and the
Civil Appeal filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
9 | P a g e
b) The Order sought to be implemented is the Order passed by Hon’ble APTEL
in Appeal No. 183 of 2015 filed by M/s. Star Wire (India) Vidyut Ltd. vs. HPPC
dated 15.03.2016. The Order has attained finality and there is nothing
stopping its implementation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the Order
dated 08.10.2014 dismissing the Civil Appeal filed by the Respondent against
order dated 09.04.2014 passed by Hon’ble APTEL in Appeal no. 90 of 2013 in
the case titled M/s. Puri Oil Mills vs. HPPC.
c) There is no issue of delay as the Order sought to be implemented is that of
Hon’ble APTEL and there is nothing against the Order as such.
7. The case was heard by the Commission as scheduled i.e. on 06.01.2017, wherein
the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that:-
a) The first condition for exemption from levy of Wheeling Charges as provided in
the HERC RE Regulations is that the delivery point of power is the switchyard
of the power plant of the IPP and the metering point is also the inter-
connection point i.e. the point where the switchyard of the power plant
connects with the power evacuation line of the licensee(s). The Petitioner have
nowhere clarified that this condition has been met with.
b) It has preferred an Appeal No. 5345 of 2016 before Hon’ble Supreme Court
against the Order of the Hon’ble APTEL dated 15.03.2016 passed in Appeal
No. 183 of 2015 in the matter of M/s. Star Wire (India) Vidyut Ltd. vs. HPPC.
The date of hearing is not yet communicated by Hon’ble Supreme Court and
till the outcome of the final verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter,
the case may be adjourned sine die. It was further pleaded that, in case any
relief is granted to the Petitioner, then some security against the amount of
relief granted to the Petitioner, be allowed to the Respondent.
Commission’s Analysis and Order
8. The Commission has considered the arguments of the Petitioner and the
Respondent as well as their replies/written submissions filed in the matter. The
Commission has further taken note of the directions from Hon’ble APTEL in its
Order dated 15.03.2016 to exercise powers vested with it under Regulations 69 of
HERC RE Regulations for relaxing Regulation 73(2) of the ibid Regulations. As a
10 | P a g e
matter of fact the Commission had already relaxed Regulation 73(2) of the ibid
Regulations w.e.f. 12.08.2015, as under:-
“The Wheeling Charges shall not be leviable on the Renewable Energy
Generators from the date of notification of these Regulations, if the entire energy
injected into the grid is purchased by the distribution licensee.”
The Commission has taken note of the contention of the Respondent that they are
not the distribution licensee and merely a procurement agency operating on behalf
of the Distribution Licensees. The Commission finds such assertion strange.
HPPC, which, as per Haryana Government Notification, also cited by the
Petitioner, is a joint forum of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Dakshin
Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and has been made responsible for procurement /
purchase of power and making payments thereto. Further, in similar matter(s)
HPPC has been filing appeal(s) in the Hon’ble APTEL and well as the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and also before this Commission. Additionally, the Power
Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the Petitioner herein i.e. SJRE dated 29th
October, 2013 has also been signed by the Haryana Power Purchase Centre
(HPPC). Thus, the Commission finds such assertion inappropriate and of no
consequence as far as the present case is concerned.
The Commission has considered the contention of the Respondent that they have
preferred an appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment of
Hon’ble APTEL dated 15.03.2016 (Appeal No. 183 of 2015) relied upon by the
Petitioner and hence till the outcome of the said Appeal No. 5345 of 2016 pending
before the Apex Court the present matter be adjourned sine die. The Commission
observes that it is well settled law that mere filing of an appeal shall not operate as
a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the
Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason
only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court
may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree. In the present
case the Appellate Court i.e. the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not stayed the
APTEL’s judgment dated 15.03.2016 appealed against by the HPPC. Hence,
the prayer of the Respondent seeking adjournment sine die cannot be
granted.
11 | P a g e
Additionally, the Commission has considered the argument of the Ld. Advocate for
the Respondent that ‘in case any relief is granted to the Petitioner the same
should be subject to some security amount against the amount of relief’. The
Commission is not inclined to accept this as the Petitioner is a small generator
having a capacity of 8 MW and is supplying / selling entire power generated to the
Respondent who represents Distribution Licensee(s) in the State at the tariff
determined by this Commission. Thus, at any point of time, if the situation so
warrants, the Respondent is in a position to recover any amount paid to the
Petitioner from the amount payable by it to the Generator for supply of power.
Thus, in the considered view of the Commission, there is no perceived risk
that needs to be mitigated at this stage.
9. The pertinent issue raised by the Respondent is that exemption / refund of
wheeling charges could be considered provided the delivery point of power is the
switchyard of the power plant of the Petitioner.
The Commission has considered the above submission and observes that the
present petition is similar to the petitions filed by M/s Puri Oil Mill and M/s. Star
Wire (India) Vidyut Ltd and the judgment of the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal for
Electricity in these cases is also applicable in the instant matter provided that the
Petitioner, so far as wheeling is concerned, is similarly placed. It is observed that
the judgment of Hon’ble APTEL which was upheld by the APEX Court (in Puri Oil
Mills), while concluding that wheeling charges are not payable (except in the case
power is supplied to a third party) had examined and relied upon the definition of
the term “Wheeling” as incorporated in Section 2(76) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The said definition is reproduced below:-
“wheeling means the operation whereby the distribution system and associated
facilities of a transmission licensee or distribution licensee, as the case may be,
are used by another person for the conveyance of electricity on payment of
charges to be determined under section 62;”
In the above context the Commission has examined the Power Purchase
Agreement between HPPC (Respondent) and M/s GEMCO (Petitioner) approved
by it vide Memo No. 1059/HERC//Tariff/PPA/SV/biomass / GEMCO/12 dated
04.07.2012. Accordingly, the point at which the ownership of power generated by
12 | P a g e
GEMCO changes hand i.e. the ‘delivery point’ has been defined in the PPA as
under:-
11) “Delivery Point” shall be the point or points at which interconnection is made
between the interconnection facilities of the Company and the Grid System of
Nigam / Discoms i.e. 132 kV Bus at switch yard of company at village Dinod,
Tehsil & Distt. Bhiwani”.
The above being the case the ‘delivery point’ of power is the switch yard of
the power plant of the Petitioner as in the case of M/s Puri Oil Mills Ltd. and
Star Wire (India) Vidyut Ltd. Hence, the petitions filed by M/s. GEMCO
seeking refund of wheeling charges deducted from their energy bills by the
Respondent from the date of CoD till the same was waived of by the
Commission w.e.f. 12.08.2015, is allowed by applying the ratio of the
Judgments relied upon by the Petitioner herein .
10. The Commission has considered the prayer of the Petitioner seeking direction to
the Respondent to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of illegal
withholding of the amount on account of ‘wheeling charges’. The Commission
observes that the Respondent, till the time judgments(s) to the contrary were
pronounced by the Appellate Courts and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
had acted in line with the HERC RE Regulations in Vogue. Further, w.e.f.
12.08.2015 the Respondent had also stopped recovering ‘wheeling charges’ in
accordance with the amendment of the HERC RE Regulations, 2010. Thus, in
the considered view of the Commission there is no illegality in the conduct
of the Respondent as such. Hence, the prayer seeking interest @ 12% p.a. is
rejected.
11. Additionally, the Commission observes that the present petition has been filed
citing the judgment by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in two cases
namely M/s Puri Oil Mill Vs HPPC and M/s. Star Wire (India) Vidyut Ltd. vs.
HPPC. The Petitioner has extensively cited from the judgment in the case of M/s.
Star Wire (India) Vidyut Ltd. vs. HPPC wherein the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal for
Electricity has ordered that the Commission should have merely relaxed
Regulation 73(2) by exercising powers vested with it under Regulation 69 of RE
Regulations. The petitioner has sought similar relaxation. The Commission, as
13 | P a g e
observed earlier, has already relaxed Regulation 73(2) w.e.f. 12.08.2015. Hence,
this issue needs no further deliberation at this stage.
12. The Order passed by the Commission is summarized below:-
HPPC/Discoms shall refund the wheeling charges deducted from the
energy bills of the Petitioner w.e.f CoD of the power plant till the time
recovery of wheeling charges was stopped w.e.f 12.08.2015.
The said amount shall be refunded to the Petitioner within 6 month from
the date of communication of this Order, failing which the said amount
shall carry simple interest @ 12% per annum till payment.
13. The Respondent (HPPC) is directed to keep the Commission informed regarding
the outcome of the Appeal No. 5345 of 2016 preferred by them in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court against the judgment dated 15.03.2016 of the Hon’ble APTEL in
Appeal No. 183 of 2015. In case the appeal is allowed by the Apex Court the
Respondent i.e. HPPC / Discoms shall approach this Commission for
consequential Order.
This Order is signed, dated and issued by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory
Commission on 17th February, 2017.
Date: 17.02.2017 (Debashish Majumdar) (M.S. Puri) (Jagjeet Singh)
Place: Panchkula Member Member Chairman