| Work Detail |
The petition under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003, along with Regulation 75 of the HERC (Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission) (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2019, was filed by Northern Railways for contravention of orders issued by the Hon’ble Commission on 17.06.2020 and 12.09.2023. The petition seeks directions for immediate compliance with these orders and the HERC (Deviation Settlement Mechanism and related matters) Regulations, 2019. Northern Railways claims that HVPNL (Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited) has continuously failed to comply with these regulations and the Commission’s orders.
The petition highlights that HVPNL has continued to raise imbalance charges on Northern Railways instead of settling deviations as per the HERC DSM Regulations, even after two clear orders from the Commission. The HERC DSM Regulations, notified on 29th April 2019, specifically address the issue of imbalance charges for open access consumers, such as Northern Railways. These charges should be settled according to the terms of these regulations rather than the HERC Open Access Regulations of 2012. Northern Railways further asserts that HVPNL’s actions are in direct violation of the Commission’s directives, and HVPNL has been unilaterally levying imbalance charges despite the Commission’s clarifications on the matter in the orders of 17.06.2020 and 12.09.2023.
Northern Railways points out that HVPNL is usurping the role of the Commission by suspending the implementation of the HERC DSM Regulations and unilaterally imposing imbalance charges instead. The petition emphasizes that HVPNL’s actions are arbitrary, and its refusal to comply with the Commission’s orders is prejudicing the public interest by burdening consumers with unlawful charges. The petitioner argues that only the Commission has the authority to make or suspend regulations under the Electricity Act, 2003 and that HVPNL’s conduct is unlawful. The petition also cites previous legal precedents on the importance of statutory bodies acting within their legal boundaries and refraining from arbitrary decisions.
During the hearing on 25/10/2024, the counsel for the petitioner, reiterated that HVPNL’s actions were contrary to the Commission’s orders. They explained that while the Commission had ordered HVPNL to comply with the DSM Regulations, HVPNL had failed to implement these directives, continuing to raise invoices for imbalance charges instead. The counsel for the petitioner stressed that from September 2021 to October 2022, HVPNL had raised invoices based on DSM Charges, which was in line with the Commission’s orders. However, HVPNL changed its stance after that period, arbitrarily raising imbalance charges instead of DSM charges.
In response, counsel for HVPNL stated that HVPNL was committed to complying with the DSM Regulations, but a proper framework for their implementation had not yet been developed and approved by the Commission. They cited the ongoing SAMAST Project as a necessary tool for the effective implementation of DSM Regulations, with the project’s completion date extended to 30/11/2024. The Counsel for HVPNL further argued that until the procedure was approved by the Commission, HVPNL could not apply the DSM Regulations. She also noted that the Northern Railways had agreed to pay provisional DSM charges while the implementation of SAMAST was still underway.
However, The counsel for the petitioner countered that the SAMAST project was just an automation tool and that there was no technical obstacle to implementing the DSM Regulations manually, especially given that manual meter readings were already being taken for imbalance charges. They pointed out that other states, such as Punjab, had implemented DSM regulations manually in the absence of an automated system. Northern Railways had 16 off-take points in Haryana, which could be easily handled manually, and HVPNL’s prolonged delay in implementing SAMAST was a pretext for continuing to levy imbalance charges. The petitioner argued that HVPNL’s reluctance to implement DSM charges was financially motivated, and the non-compliance with the Commission’s orders was deliberate. |
