1

BEFORE THE HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

AT PANCHKULA

Case No. HERC/PRO- 21 & 23 of 2013

Date of Hearing 12.01.2015

Date of Order 20.02.2015 In the matter of

Petition under Section 23/86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Haryana Electricity Reforms Act, 1997 read with the HERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1998 praying for passing appropriate orders for discharge of the statutory obligations by the Respondents 1 and 2 in the interest of the residents/ consumers of Residential Colony, Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) and Sushant Lok-III falling in Sector-57, Gurgaon with a prayer to direct the Respondents no. 1 and 2 to release/sanction the Electricity Load of 1500 KVA which is within the duly certified Load bearing capacity of requisite infrastructure laid by the Petitioner Company and certified by the officials of Respondent no. 2 in the colony Sushant Lok-II Extension and Sushant Lok-III and/or alternatively supply the electricity directly to end consumers in these colonies as well as granting other relief as per the prayer clause and grant any other relief which is deemed fit and proper. M/s Ansal Buildwell Ltd., 7,Prakash Deep Building, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi

……...Petitioner

V/S

1.Dakshin Haryana, Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Hisar.

………..Respondent No.1

2. The Chief Engineer/Op. DHBVN, New Delhi.

……….Respondent No. 2

3. Residents Welfare Association of Sushant Lok-II (Ext.), Gurgaon.

………..Proforma Respondent

Present

On behalf of Petitioner Sh. Ashish Chopra, Advocate

Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate

On behalf of Respondent No.1 Sh. Varun Pathak, Advocate

Sh. Vinod Kumar Punia

Xen (Op.) DHBVN, Gurgaon

2

On behalf of Respondent No.2 & 3

None

QUORUM Shri Jagjeet Singh, Chairman

Shri M. S. Puri, Member

ORDER

M/S Ansal Build Well Ltd., New Delhi has filed two Petitions bearing

No. PRO 21/2013 and PRO No. 23/2013 on 21.06.2013 for seeking relief for the

extension of load of 1500 KW each in their Single Point Supply connections of

electricity for the two colonies being developed by them in Gurgaon namely, Sushant

Lok II (Extension) and Sushant Lok III respectively. In view of the fact that both these

cases are of similar nature, the issues involved and the prayer made by the

Petitioner as well as the relief sought under both the Petitions is similar, the

Commission decided to club both the Petitions and examined the Petition PRO

21/2013 for the purpose of adjudication and order.

I. Brief facts of the case:

1. The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The instant Petition has been filed through Shri O.P Wahi, Senior General Manager.

2. The Petitioner submitted that after obtaining license under Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, the company has developed the residential colony named Sushant Lok-II Extension (SL-II Extn.) falling under the area of sectors 57, Gurgaon. It is pertinent to state here that the said colony was initially being developed by the Petitioner group company M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (API for short) but later, due to reorganization/family rearrangement between the promoter families of the group companies, the development of the colony SL-II Extn. was assigned to the Petitioner company – M/s Ansal Buildwell Ltd. (ABL for short). plead

3. It has been further submitted that as per the estimate, electricity load required in Sushant Lok-II (Extn), the API got the electrification scheme layout plan dated 16.10.1998 approved /sanctioned from the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board. He further submitted that the sanctioned electrification layout scheme as per the estimated electricity load for SL-II Extn. has been duly signed/approved right from the level of SDO, AEE, XEN, SE and then finally the Engineer in Chief, HSEB.

3

4. The approved/sanctioned electrification scheme of SL-II Extn. specifies the cable routing and the substation locations, The Petitioner has executed the work of the said sanctioned electrification scheme in its colony SL-II Extn.

5. The Petitioner submitted that the estimated electricity load as per the sanctioned electrification scheme was based on the load norms as per recommended load per plot in the entire colony of SL-II Extn. As per the load report, an estimated load of 4081 KVA was recommended by the SDO for the SL-II Extn. colony.

6. The Petitioner has installed the sub stations with their respective recommended/sanctioned capacities in its colony SL-II Extn. with cumulative capacity 3,900 KVA. After the satisfactory inspection, the certificates have been issued and the substations have been energized for the supply of electricity to the residents/end consumers of the colony SL-II Extn.

7. It has been further submitted that the distribution transformers installed above are currently working and worth taking 3,900 KVA load.

8. The Petitioner further submitted that as the colony SL-II. started getting inhabited, the API vide letter dated 07.09.2001 addressed to XEN of HVPNL requested for approval of the (i) overhead HT system within the colony and (ii) routing of HT feeder from grid station to the colony so that colony could be energized.

9. He also placed a copy of the letter dated 08.10.2001 from Chief Engineer, DHBVN addressed to XEN, Gurgaon directing API to avail Bulk Supply connection in view of mixed load i.e. domestic and commercial and complete the formalities to get the load sanctioned.

10. Accordingly, initially a load of 950 KW was released on 16.05.2003 as Bulk Supply on single point which was later increased from 950 KW to 2350 KW and released accordingly for the benefit of the end users i.e residents.

11. The sanction of enhancing the load from 950 KW to 2350 KW was granted vide letter dated 26.03.2007 by CGM, DHBVN.

12. It has been submitted that the Petitioner has installed the infrastructure as per approved electrification scheme in its colony which is capable of bearing the estimated load of 3900 KVA. The substations along with feeder network has been inspected and duly certified by the concerned authorities before granting the permission to energize each and every substation.

4

13. It has further submitted that keeping in view the pace of construction activity and the inhabitation of the colony, the load release/sanction was sought in phased manner as per estimated requirement from time to time.

14. The Petitioner submitted that he presently is having a sanctioned load 2611 KVA (2350KW) as against the executed/sanctioned and approved capacity of 3900 KVA .The load was last time enhanced from 950 KW to 2350 KW on 26.03.2007 which is presently grossly inadequate as the habitation/ load demand has substantially increased over the past four years .It is the case of the Petitioner company that even as per the own certification of the Respondents, the installed capacity of electrification of colony SL-II Extn. is capable of taking a load of 3900KVA with approved recommended capacity of 4,081KVA.

15. He further added that the DHBVN has declined to entertain any application of the Petitioner company for release of further load on the ostensible ground that the electrification installation in the colony is inadequate to bear any further increase in the load. The stand of the Respondents is wrong and untenable in view of the reality as stated above. The inhabitants/end users of the colony are suffering for this callous attitude of the DHBVN. The DHBVN is not entertaining any application even for the individual increase of load in the houses of the inhabitants of the colony as it does not recognize them as their consumers. Resultantly, the end user/inhabitants of the colony as well as the Petitioner company are suffering for no fault of theirs despite adequate electrical infrastructure having been installed and duly certified by the authorities.

16. The Petitioner has averred that the genesis of the refusal of the DHBVN to increase the sanctioned load in the colony seems to be a policy letter dated 12.01.2011 of their CE vide which the SEs have been directed that for upgrading the electrical infrastructure in the area developed by the developers the cost must be shared in 75:25 ratio (75 developer and 25 DHBVN) and placed copy of the said policy letter dated 12.01.2011 for reference.

17. He further submitted that the said policy letter dated 12.01.2011 is applicable in those cases where the electrical infrastructure within the colony has been or is being installed by DHBVN. In present case the electrical infrastructure has been laid/installed by the Petitioner with due certification of load bearing capacity of 3900KVA it is not the case of even of DHBVN that certificates of worthiness issued by them are wrong and against which they have already released only 2350 KVA.

5

18. Pursuant to the letter dated 12.01.2011 of the CE, supra, the SE DHBVN wrote a letter dated 17.01.2011 to the Petitioner company (ABL) asking it to take necessary action without really specifying as to what action.

19. Further, notwithstanding the follow up of Petitioner company with DHBVN that the said policy letter is not applicable on the colony SL-II EXTN, a letter dated 17.02.2011 demanding a sum of Rs.4.61 crore form Petitioner company was sent on account of alleged inadequacy of distribution infrastructure in the colony SL-II EXTN... No fresh inspection of the installed/approved/certified capacity in the colony was carried out vis a vis the load already released by DHBVN before issuance of the said letter demanding such huge sum which ultimately is burden on the end users. A copy of the said demand letter dated 17.02.2011 is placed for reference. The Petitioner has sought the kind indulgence of this Hon’ble Commission to conduct an independent inspection through an expert as to the installed load capacity of 3,900 KVA and its feeder electrical infrastructure in Sushant Lok-II Extension as already certified by office of Respondents no.1-2.

20. The Petitioner submitted that his officials kept meeting from time to time with DHBVN officials to explain that the said policy is general policy and the case of the Petitioner company is very specific and on different footing and needs to be segregated from the other developers who are not having bulk supply and where the supply is being carried out by DHBVN. However, the XEN ,DHBVN vide his letter dated 22.04.2011 again insisted on enforcing the policy dated 12.01.2011 and demanded 75% contribution (Rs.4.61 crore) from Petitioner’s company within 15 days failing which no new electric connection will be released to the residents of the colony Sushant Lok-II (Ext.). The Petitioner was also warned that even the electrical layout plans of the colony will also be cancelled with immediate effect.

21. Realizing that all the verbal appeals to the officials of the DHBVN were not fruitful, the Petitioner company vide its detailed representation/ letter dated 27.05.2011 addressed to SE. DHBVN explained the whole case thread bare in writing and requested that an additional load of 1500 KW be released to meet the requirement of the residents of the colony so that the request for new connections/enhancement of individual load etc to end user could be entertained by the company. It was again submitted that the same would be within the installed and certified capacity of infrastructure. Even after release of the 1500 KVA as prayed for the colony would be left with surplus installed capacity (4,750-2,300+1,500= 950 KVA) for further release of load in future.

22. The Petitioner stated that they requested the DHBVN to at least disclose the details/ basis of deficiency arriving at the demand of Rs. 4.61 crore so that the company can match with the said electrical network as contemplated by the DHBVN.

6

23. The Petitioner further stated that the load requirement has increased over the past four years but the DHBVN is refusing to release further load on flimsy grounds by treating the Bulk Supply case of Petitioner at par with that where DHBVN is direct supplier to end users. It may be noted that during the summer period every year, the load requirement suddenly increases many fold and the recorded Maximum demand goes beyond the contract demand, due to refusal of the DHBVN to release further load and increase the contract demand. As a result, the DHBVN immediately invokes the penalty/ surcharge clause and imposes a 25% surcharge on the total bulk supply bill. On an average the Petitioner company is paying Rs. 10 to 15 lakhs as penalty per month during peak summer months.

24. He further submitted that the Respondent No. 1 is the sole distribution licensee for supply/distribution of electricity in Gurgaon including the colony developed by the Petitioner and has also monopoly in the matter of supply/ distribution of electricity in the area.

25. He also stated that the Petitioner is a private developer/ colonizer and for electricity distribution and supply the Petitioner is statutorily dependent on Respondent no.1. The later always was and is placed in a dominating position vis-à-vis the Petitioner and monopoly in the matter of supply/distribution of electricity in the area.

26. He further added that taking undue and unfair advantage of the Petitioner’s vulnerable position and its own position of dominance and monopoly in the matter of supply/ distribution of electricity in the area, the Respondent No. 1 advised/ compelled the Petitioner to act as its single point distribution (SPD) agent for distribution of electricity to its consumers. The Petitioner company accordingly took a single point connection of electricity and it is from that single point connection that the consumers/ residents are further distributed individual electricity connections in Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) The Respondent No. 1 has released only 2,611 KVA (2,350 KW) in SL-II EXTN. out of approval/ sanctioned and installed/certified load capacity of 3,900 KVA and the Petitioner has already exhausted the full load by providing electric connections to individual customers /consumers from its single point bulk supply connection.

27. The Petitioner submitted that Respondents No.1-2 charge from the Petitioner the amount as per the quantity of electricity drawn and recorded by the meter for Bulk Supply connection and the end consumers of electricity have separate individual meters installed at their respective premises and pay to the Petitioner the charges for the consumption of electricity as per readings recorded by the meter installed at their respective premises.

7

28. He further added that the Petitioner has been performing the work of single point distribution agency of Respondent No.1 since 2002-03 and there is no written agreement signed for the purpose.

29. He also asserted that there are bound to be transmission/ distribution losses of electricity between single point bulk supply meter and the separate meters installed at the premises of the individual end consumers. The Petitioner has no authority and does not have the means and resources to check and eliminate the transmissions losses on account of faulty transmission lines, theft, pilferage, leakage etc. from the point of its single point bulk supply meter up to the separate meters installed at the premises of the individual end consumers and to compel the defaulting end consumers to pay for the consumption of electricity as shown by their respective meters. Such losses caused by faulty transmission lines, theft, pilferage and leakage etc. further increased the need of further release of the load as the habitation increases.

30. The Petitioner submitted that he had meetings and approached Respondents No. 1 and 2 several times requesting them for the redressal of the consumer’ grievances in relation to the direct supply/ enhancement of electricity load in Sushant Lok-II (Ext.). and help the Petitioner for mitigation of the same but to no avail.

31. However, Respondents No. 1-2 have been avoiding and ultimately refused the requests of the Petitioner to enhance the sanctioned load by another 1500 KVA as requested by the Petitioner. Thus, Respondents No. 1-2 have failed to perform their statutory obligations as mentioned above.

32. He mentioned that under section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is the statutory obligation of Respondent No. 1, being the distribution licensee, to develop and maintain the efficient and co-ordinated and economical distribution system in its areas of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 43 of the Act further enjoins that every distribution licensee shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply and that it shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electrical plant or electric line, for giving electric supply to the premises of the applicant.

33. He further indicated that taking undue and unfair advantage of his vulnerable position and its own position of dominance and monopoly in the matter of supply/ distribution of electricity in the area, the Respondent No. 1, in order to avoid performance of its own statutory obligations, advised/ compelled the Petitioner to act as its single point distribution (SPD) agent for distribution of electricity to its consumers. The Petitioner was accordingly

8

compelled to take a single point bulk supply connection of electricity and it is from that single point connection and further distributes individual electricity connections to end users in Sushant Lok-II (Ext.).

34. The Petitioner submitted that there is a statutory obligation on the Respondent no. 1 to distribute and supply electricity in the area falling under its domain and the said obligation cannot be abdicated by forcibly deputing the developers of the colony as SPD agents and compel them in to sub distribution of electricity supply.

35. The Petitioner further stated that Respondent No. 1 could not/ cannot abdicate their statutory obligations on the shoulders of the Petitioner and that section 12 of the Electricity Act. 2003 prohibits the Petitioner from performing any such functions.

36. The Petitioner also stated that Respondent No. 1 is itself performing such obligations. The residents of those sectors are directly dealing with Respondent No. 1 for obtaining electricity connections, receiving bills, making payments for the consumption of electricity and for the redressal of their grievances in relation to the supply of electricity.

37. He further added that qua the area of residential colony Sushant Lok-II (Ext.), which falls within and is part of HUDA Sector-57, Gurgaon, Respondents have failed to perform such responsibilities/ obligations and have instead thrust the same on the shoulder of and compelled their performance by the Petitioner.

38. He further stated that as stated the Petitioner has had meetings and approached Respondents No. 1-2 several times and requested that they should themselves perform their statutory obligation qua Sushant Lok-III in their area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions of the Act and to directly deal with the end consumer for receiving applications for electricity connections etc, issuing bills, receiving payments for the consumption of electricity and for the redressal of the consumers’ grievances in relation to the supply of electricity to relieve the Petitioner of any further responsibility in this behalf.

39. But the Respondents No. 1-2 have been avoiding and ultimately refused the requests of the Petitioner to perform their own statutory obligations as mentioned above and to relieve the Petitioner of any further responsibility in this behalf. Thus, Respondents No. 1-2 have failed to perform their statutory obligations as mentioned above.

40. The Petitioner submitted that they had no choice but to approach this Hon’ble Commission for seeking appropriate relief, Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers this Hon’ble Commission to enforce

9

standards with respect to quality, continuity and reliability of service by the licensees. Vide section 11 of the Haryana Electricity Reforms Act, 1997, the functions of this Honorable Commission amongst others are to regulate the working of the licensees and to promote their working in an efficient, economical and equitable manner; to promote efficiency, economy and safety in the use of the electricity in the State including and in particular in regard to quality, continuity and reliability of service and enable all reasonable demands for electricity to be met; to promote competitiveness and progressively involve the participation of private sector, while ensuring fair deal to the customers.

41. He further added that in order to put an end to the wholly illegal course of action adopted by Respondents No. 1-2 and to mitigate the grievance of the Petitioner, it is necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon’lbe commission may please pass appropriate directions in the matter directing Respondents No. 1-2 to forthwith release the further electricity load of 1500 KVA in SL-II (Ext.), as prayed for and pass further orders for the redressal of the end consumers’ grievances in relation to the supply of electricity. Alternatively, the Respondents may be directed to take over the direct supply and distribution of the electricity directly and user like in other colonies of the Petitioner company.

PRAYER

The Petitioner has prayed as under:-

a. Direct the Respondents no. 1-2 to release the further load of 1,500 kW in

Sushant Lok-II extension, Gurgaon and until the grant of same, in the interim,

direct them to release 1000 KVA immediately;

ALTERNATIVELY

Respondent 1-2 be directed forth with take up and themselves perform their

statutory obligations qua Sushant Lok-II extension colony, Gurgaon being

their area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions

of the Electricity Act;

b. Consequent to the grant of alternative relief direct the Respondents to directly

deal with the end consumer for receiving and dealing with applications for

electricity connections, enhancement of load etc, issuing bills, receiving

10

payments for the consumption of electricity and for the redressal of the

consumers’ grievances in relation to the supply of electricity;

c. Declare that policy letter P/8 is not applicable on the bulk supply single point

distribution and the same pertains to areas/colonies where DHBVN is the

distributor;

d. Pass any other /further directions/ order as may be deemed just and proper;

II. RESPONDENT REPLY

The Respondent No. I submitted its reply on the Petition as under:

1. It is submitted that the present Petitioner is a part of the Ansal Group and has been granted a license for development of housing colonies from the State of Haryana. It is submitted that one of the license conditions of the Petitioner is to provide adequate electrical infrastructure for its developed colonies. It is submitted that the license conditions issued by the Govt. of Haryana mandate that developers like the Ansal Buildwell Ltd. have to provide electrical infrastructure in order to service the consumers and residents of those residential projects. It is submitted that the electrical infrastructure so developed needs to be adequate enough to be able to sustain the ultimate load in accordance with the load norms approved by the Govt. of Haryana and by the rules and regulations framed under the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” or “Electricity Act” for sake of brevity).

2. It is submitted that Ansal Buildwell Ltd are developing / developed the properties at different locations in Gurgaon over the past few years, include domestic, commercial and a mix of both.

3. It is submitted that as per the licenses granted to Ansal Group and Ansal Buildwell Ltd. by the Directorate of Town & Country Planning, the Petitioner had committed to develop an adequate electrical infrastructure including construction of required number of substations.

4. It is submitted that the “Electrification of private colony / HUDA sector and Housing Board Colonies – Feeding Arrangements” issued by HSEB dated 16.08.1988 states as under:- “3(e) If a grid substation is to be erected to meet with the load

requirement, it will be done at the cost of colonizer and the required land will also be made available by the colonizer free of cost”.

5. It is submitted that the DHBVN guidelines for providing electrical system in the colonies / multistory buildings developed by HUDA / HSIDC / Colonizers Licensee/ SEZ issued on 17.07.2006. state as under:-

11

“….the following schemes shall be followed for designing the feeding arrangements of the load of the sector: i) Up to 5 MVA - through independent feeder from existing

substation ii) Plus 5 MVA up to 15 MVA 33 kV substation iii) Plus 15 MVA up to 75 MVA 66 / 132 kV substation iv) Plus 75 MVA 220 kV substation …the location of the substation land site should preferably be in the center of the sector on main road …..”

6. It is submitted that the land requirement for substations as per revised guidelines issued by DHBVN on 09.05.2011 is as under: i) 33 kV substation (AIS) 2 acres ii) 33 kV substation (GIS) 1/4th acre iii) 66 kV substation (AIS) 3 acres iv) 66 kV substation (GIS) 1 acre v) 220 kV substation (AIS) 18 acres vi) 220 kV substation (GIS) 6 acres

7. It is submitted that the policy for upgrading Electrical Infrastructure in the

area developed by the Colonizers / Builders / Developers under DHBVN as circulated on 14.12.2010, the extract is reproduced as under:-

“…it has been further observed by the Nigam’s management that before taking over the electrical system of these Colonies / Multistoried buildings developed by the HUDA / HSIDC / Colonizers / Licensees / SEZ etc., the inadequacy in the electrical infrastructure, if any, as per the revised load norms be got made up from the respective agencies. However, it has further been decided and approved by the state government that the additional expenditure to meet with the inadequacy as per the new load norms in respect of the area developed by the Colonizers / Builders / Developers where electrification plans were got approved by them before the issue of ibid instructions on the old load norms will be shared in the ratio of 75:25 between the developing agencies and the DHBVN. The Nigam will take over the electrical infrastructure in the area being developed by such agencies after the same has been upgraded as per the new load norms only…”

8. It is submitted that Ansal Buildwell Ltd. was duty bound to develop the infrastructure in the properties developed by it as per the latest load norms approved by the Haryana Government and for the properties which were developed by Ansal Buildwell Ltd. prior to the revision of load norms in 2006, the sharing was to be done upto the 75% cost of the inadequacy was

12

to be paid by Ansal Buildwell Ltd. It is submitted that the inadequacy has not been cured till date by the Ansal Buildwell Ltd.

9. It is submitted that such inadequacy has persisted both pre 2006 and post 2006. It is submitted that the inadequacy of development of electrical infrastructure has adversely affected other consumers of the distribution licensee and such blatant violation of the obligations by Ansal Buildwell Ltd. is clearly illegal.

10. It is submitted that based upon the load norms approved by the government, all the electrical infrastructure was to be provided to the prospective consumers by the Petitioner as a part of services being offered by the builder to the consumers, being a precondition of the license granted by Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Haryana. Inspite of the onus of the same on the Petitioner, the adequate electrical infrastructure in respect of the ultimate load has still not been developed by the Petitioner and consequently the distribution licensee cannot give new connections for the area for which the electrical network is inadequate.

11. It is submitted that the present Petition has been filed with respect to Sushant Lok –II extension. It is submitted that the Petitioner was granted the original sanction of 950 KW which was revise to 2350 KW vide letter dated 26.03.2007 for Sushant Lok- II (Ext.). It is submitted that the answering Respondent accorded extension of load from 950 KW to 2350 KW with CD 1055 KVA to 2611 KVA for Sushant Lok –II (Ext.). It is submitted that even as per the initial approvals the electrical infrastructure developed by the Petitioner is inadequate.

12. It is submitted that the Petitioner is deliberately trying to mix the issues of development of infrastructure as per norms, the load which a builder can apply and the certifications by the office of Chief Electrical Inspectorate, Haryana. In fact, these issues are entirely different from each other and are explained as under:- i) Load norms primarily determine the load that would expectedly

come up on the transmission and distribution systems at any point of time and which would eventually guide in determining the minimum capacity and level of electrical infrastructure to be created in order to ensure uninterrupted and quality power to the consumers. To arrive at reasonably adequate load norms, following two issues are important:- a) The connected load which any premise, may it be residential,

commercial, industrial or any other category, is expected to install / connect for the purpose of fulfilling its electricity requirements, and

13

b) Demand factor (DF) meaning thereby the maximum demand

which any premise would put on the transmission and distribution system of licensee at any point of time against its total connected load.

ii) The load norms have been devised in order to ensure that a builder / developer, whether private or government, erects an adequate electrical infrastructure for its residents, which the residents may eventually use to cater to their electricity needs and the usage pattern. It has nothing to do with what load any builder / developer decides to get sanctioned from the distribution licensee at any point of time. It can be lesser as well as more than the value for which the minimum infrastructure to be created is arrived at as per approved load norms.

iii) The approvals / certifications of any installation by the office of Chief Electrical Inspector, Haryana do not infringe upon the powers of the distribution licensee to either determine the load norms or the minimum infrastructure to be created or its cost or the load to be sanctioned to any builder / developer / industry / individual. Also, any such certification of any installation by CEI Haryana does not give any right to the consumer or a set of consumers to ask the distribution licensee to treat it as the sanctioned load, the sanctioning process entirely being within the purview and powers of the licensee. The office of Chief Electrical Inspector only determines whether any electrical installation, put forth for its scrutiny, fulfills all the stipulated safety laws and as to whether such installation is safe for use or not.

iv) The per capita consumption of electricity in Haryana 15-20 years ago was hardly 300 units, which has now risen to more than 900 units. And, so has risen the requirement of adequate electrical network / infrastructure to cater to the ever increasing demand.

v) At the time of entry of private builders / developers in the real estate, as a competitor to the government owned HUDA, there was a sense of mutual trust and faith between the licensee and the real estate. It was expected that these builders and developers would show enough maturity and not to shy away from their responsibility of erecting an adequate electrical infrastructure for its residents. But when the developers, in most of the cases, did not prefer to fulfill their obligations under the law and started subjecting their residents to suffer, the licensee had to think of some means and ways by which the builders / developers could be asked to fulfill their obligations before leaving it entirely to the fate of poor residents.

14

One of such ways DHBVN could deliberate upon was to ask the builders / developers to furnish a Bank Guarantee as a measure of security from the builder so that in case the builder / developer does not come forward to create the infrastructure, DHBVN would get it done at the cost of builder by invoking the BG.

vi) The notice for BG, which the Petitioner has mentioned in the Petition, is just because of this precautionary measure and should not be taken as any coercive action against the Petitioner. Had the builders / developers created the minimum infrastructure as per norms, there would not have been any need to issue such kind of circulars. Petitioner is resisting the said circular to save themselves from an expenditure against which they have already charged their respective residents / plot / flat holders. In fact, by not complying with the laid down load norms and their own commitment in this regard, the builders / developers have subjected their residents etc. to coercive actions taking advantage of the unorganized residents / plot holders.

vii) DHBVN has never refused the extension of load to any builder / developer but at the same time the minimum security in the shape of BG has been asked for to secure the interests of their residents / plot holders etc. Partial loads have also been allowed wherever the builders / developers have deposited such BGs.

13. It is submitted that the present Petitions are misconceived as the Petitioner is duty bound under Single Point Supply to Residential Colonies or Office cum Residential Complexes of Employers, Group Housing Societies and Commercial cum Residential Complexes of Developers Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Regulations” for sake of brevity) to develop the infrastructure for Sushant Lok –II (Ext.). It is submitted that the extension of load cannot be granted unless the Petitioner develops its infrastructure as per the latest load norms.

PARAWISE REPLY

The Respondent No. 1 has submitted para-wise reply as under:-

14. Para 1 – The contents of para 1 are a matter of record.

15. Para 2 - It is submitted that the Petitioner has not complied with its conditions of license by the Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Haryana. It is submitted that the Petitioner is duty bound under its license conditions and the 2013 Regulations to provide adequate electrical infrastructure in Sushant Lok – II extension.

16. Para 3 – It is submitted that Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “API” for sake of brevity) got the electrification scheme layout plan dated 16.10.1998 sanctioned by the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity

15

Board. It is submitted that there has been a deficiency in the development of the electrical infrastructure by API/Petitioner from the very beginning. It is submitted that even otherwise the Petitioner is duty bound to follow the load norms approved by the answering Respondent.

17. Para 4 –It is denied that the Petitioner has executed the work of the sanctioned electrification in its colony Sushant Lok – II extension. It is submitted that even as per the original sanctioned load the Petitioner has not complied with the load norms.

18. Para 5- It is submitted that the connected load as per Annexure P/2 clearly shows that the connected load suggested by the erstwhile Electricity Board was more than the actual connected load for the society. It is submitted that even from this document the deficiency is evident.

19. Para 6- The contents of para 6 are denied except whatever is a matter of record. It is denied that the Petitioner has installed the requisite sub-stations. It is submitted that the sub-stations installed by the Petitioner are not enough and do not meet the load requirements for the area. It is submitted that cumulative capacity of 3,900 KVA, as is being claimed by the Petitioner was never approved by the answering Respondent. It is further submitted that the sanction letter dated 26.03.2007 provided that the sanctioned load was required to be built up within six months, then the revised A&A forms were to be sent for sanction, which admittedly has not been done in the present case. It is submitted that Sushant Lok – II extension is covered under the 2013 Regulations. It is submitted that as per Regulation 6 and 5 of the 2013 Regulations, the Petitioner is duty bound to install the complete infrastructure. It is submitted that for Sushant Lok – II extension the current infrastructure which needs to be installed is 39949 KVA. It is submitted that the Petitioner has never actually furnished Sushant Lok – II extension with adequate load norms and is asking sanction of additional load which the Petitioner has not applied for till date. It is submitted that the Petitioner is trying to hoodwink the regulatory mechanism established under the Electricity Act. It is submitted that firstly, the Petitioner has illegally taken a load of 3,900 KVA when the sanctioned load was only for 2350 KW with CD 1055KVA to 2611 KVA. It is submitted that even at the time of the initial sanctions the infrastructure was not adequate, but keeping in mind the occupancy of the colony, the sanctioned load was increased to 2350 KW with CD 1055 KVA to 2611 KVA. The increased sanctioned load was done keeping in mind the occupancy level in 2009. The current load of 3,900 KVA was never sanctioned by the Nigam and has never been approved. It is submitted that the current occupancy level and the load norms are completely different. It is submitted that the load of 3,900 KVA, which has never been approved by the answering Respondent, is grossly inadequate and the infrastructure is to be seen in light of the current norms prescribed by the licensee. It is submitted that under the regulations framed by this Hon’ble Commission, the Petitioner is duty bound

16

to get the extension sanctioned as per the latest load norms. It is submitted that in previous sanction letter also mandated that the Petitioner shall comply with all the sales circulars of the answering Respondent and the previous sanctions also were subject to revision of load norms from time to time.

20. Para 7 – The contents of para 7 are denied except whatever is a matter of record. It is submitted that the Petitioner is erroneously trying to rely on certificates issued by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Inspectorate, Haryana and trying to link the same to the answering Respondent having approved the electrical infrastructure of the Petitioner. It is submitted that such an inference is completely erroneous and the answering Respondent has not approved the electrical infrastructure of Sushant Lok – II extension. It is submitted that the additional load, as claimed by the Petitioner, has never been approved by the answering Respondent.

21. Paras 8 & 9 – The contents of paras 8 & 9 are denied except whatever is a matter of record.

22. Paras 10 & 11 –The contents of paras 10 & 11 are denied except whatever is a matter of record. It is submitted that the increased sanctioned load was only suitable at the occupancy level in 2009. It is submitted that at the current level of occupancy and load norms, the electrical infrastructure installed by the Petitioner is completely inadequate.

23. Para 12 –It is submitted that the Petitioner did not install the infrastructure as per the approved electrification plan as admittedly the installed infrastructure being claimed by the Petitioner is 3,900 KVA which quantum was never approved by the answering Respondent. It is submitted that load being sought by the Petitioner is severely inadequate and is not in compliance with the latest load norms for electrical infrastructure.

24. Para 13 –It is submitted that the Petitioner itself admits that the load sanction and release has to happen in a phased manner depending on the estimated requirement. It is submitted that the requirement for electrical infrastructure as per the current norms is completely inadequate and the same has an adverse effect on the other consumers of the answering Respondent.

25. Para 14 –It is submitted that the Petitioner itself in its Petition has admitted that the current sanctioned load is inadequate. It is submitted that any increase in the sanctioned load has to take place as per the latest norms of the answering Respondent. It is submitted that the increase in load being sought by the Petitioner is grossly inadequate. It is submitted that any further load cannot be released unless the Petitioner constructs a 66KV substation.

26. Para 15 –It is submitted that the Petitioner has till date not sought an approval from the answering Respondent. It is submitted that the Petitioner was duty bound to develop its infrastructure as per the latest norms of the answering

17

Respondent. It is submitted that the Petitioner is duty bound under the 2013 Regulations to maintain and develop the electrical infrastructure as per the norms of the answering Respondent. It is submitted that since the colony is on single point supply, under the 2013 Regulations, the Petitioner is duty bound to install, operate, maintain all infrastructure including substations/transformers required for distribution of electricity within the premises of the colony as per regulation 5.1 of the 2013 Regulations. It is submitted that as per regulation 5.2 of the 2013 Regulations, if the colony opts for the development of infrastructure by the distribution licensee, then responsibility and liability of the cost is that of the developer, which in the present case is the Petitioner. It is submitted that the answering Respondent has already served a notice dated 6.9.2013 upon the Petitioner for development of the electrical infrastructure. It is submitted that the answering Respondent has sought Rs. 113.07 crores from the Petitioner to cure the inadequacy in the electrical infrastructure in the colonies developed by the Ansal Group.

27. Para 16 –It is submitted that the policy dated 12.01.2011 was issued in the background of wide scale inadequacy of electrical infrastructure by private builders. It is submitted that infrastructural development including group housing societies and plotted colonies is supplemented by the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regularization of the Urban Areas Act, 1975 read along with its subsequent amendments and rules. As a matter of practice, the owner or subsequent purchaser claiming through the colonizer/builder applies to the Director, Town and Country Planning for a license to develop a particular colony. While doing so, the applicant specifically undertakes that he has the capability of developing the same and files along with his application, the plan regarding development works to be carried out in a colony. It is submitted that the applicant discloses all details regarding not only internal but also external development works which includes within its ambit electrical works. The electrical works constitute the availability of feeding source i.e. provision of grid sub stations as per load requirement, transmission lines, indoor switch/distribution sub stations provided for distribution transformers, LT lines and service lines for feeding to the end consumers and the electrical system is provided as per load requirement. The cost of development works are realized by the Developer / Colonizer from the plot/flat holders, 30% of which is deposited in a separate account in a scheduled bank and is maintained for carrying out internal development works to be carried out by the Developer / Colonizer to the satisfaction of the DTCP. The rest 70% is retained by him to meet the cost of land and external development works. In case, the Government or a local authority undertakes to carry out the development works, proportionate development charges are paid by the builder to the same. It is submitted that with the meteoric development of Gurgaon and as the things started getting out of hands and the residents of such developed properties started feeling a pinch of the inadequate electrical infrastructure developed by their respective

18

builders / developers.The distribution utility decided to revise load norms in 2004 calling upon the builders / developers to follow these norms and to create an electrical infrastructure adequate enough to cater to the electricity needs of their residents. A committee comprising of Nigam officers was constituted in this regard to study and submit a report. Accordingly, a detailed survey was conducted in the areas developed by HUDA as well as by the private colonizers / developers. Committee submitted its report vide memo no. 7 / DRG-30 dated 05.07.2004 and the revised load norms were circulated vide Sales Circular no. D-31/2004 dated 16.09.2004. In this revision, connected loads for the plots having area up to 220 sq. meters was fixed at 16 kW which gradually stepped up to 40 kW for plots measuring above 650 sq. meters. These load norms were further rationalized in 2006 and were circulated vide instruction no. 8/2006/PD&C dated 17.07.2006. Having come face to face with ground reality and fearing a lot of investment on creation of the electrical infrastructure in their respective properties, most of the private builders / developers / colonizers started raising objections on the authenticity of such load norms on one pretext or the other whereas HUDA & HSIIDC wished to have a review and revision of these norms. Finally, the issue of enforcing these load norms w.e.f. 2006 reached the Haryana Government. After lot of deliberations at different levels and keeping in view the hardships faced by the residents, these load norms were found reasonable and implementable. However, on the issue as to who would bear the cost of making up such inadequacies on the basis of load norms circulated in 2006, a meeting was held between Power Department, HUDA and Town & Country Planning on 26.07.2007 wherein the issue was decided as under:- “a) The sectors which were floated up to 01.10.1986 where internal

electrification has been done by the erstwhile HSEB, the respective power utilities shall foot the cost of up-gradation of infrastructure in those areas. Alternatively, if observation of the authority meeting is kept in view, HUDA and power utility may share the cost in the ratio of 25:75 for additional transformer required due to increase in the load factor from 0.25 to 0.40. b) For the sectors which were floated after 01.10.1986 where the cost of internal infrastructure has been loaded in the price of the plot, the additional cost on account of additional transformer required due to increase in the load factor from 0.25 to 0.4 shall be borne by HUDA and the power utility in the ratio of 75:25 as decided by the authority.”

Subsequent to this meeting at Haryana Government level, another meeting was held on 22.07.2010 wherein it was decided to apply formula of 75:25 (as in the case of HUDA) to all the developers / colonizers. This decision was circulated vide Sales Circular no. D-15/2010 dated 14.12.2010 But, despite the government orders and commitments made by some of the builders / developers before HERC in this regard, majority of the builders / developers

19

have not created an adequate electrical infrastructure even till date. The Petitioner also falls in the category of the defaulters.

28. Para 17 –It is reiterated that the Petitioner is liable to upgrade the electrical infrastructure. It is submitted that the 2013 Regulations framed by this Hon’ble Commission have put an obligation on the Petitioner to adequately develop its infrastructure. It is submitted that since the colony is on single point supply, under the 2013 Regulations, the Petitioner is duty bound to install, operate, maintain all infrastructure including substations/transformers required for distribution of electricity within the premises of the colony as per regulation 5.1 of the 2013 Regulations. It is submitted that as per regulation 5.2 of the 2013 Regulations, if the colony opts for the development of infrastructure by the distribution licensee, then responsibility and liability of the cost is that of the developer, which in the present case is the Petitioner.

29. Para 18 – The contents of para 18 are denied except whatever is a matter of record.

30. Para 19 to 23- It is submitted that the connected load of Sushant Lok – II extension is grossly inadequate and no future load can be released till such time the electrical infrastructure is developed by the Petitioner as per the latest load norms of the answering Respondent. It is submitted that the sanctioned load of Sushant Lok – II extension cannot be increased without the corresponding development of sub-stations and other necessary electrical infrastructure. It is submitted that under the Electricity Act, as per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, a Distribution Licenseeis obligated to supply electricity on request however, section 45 provides for recovery of charges i.e. energy tariff, and section 46 provides for the recovery of reasonable expenditure incurred in the supply of electricity to a person requiring supply of energy, if such supply would require extension of Distribution Network, Commissioning of new sub-station, electrical line or electrical plant etc. Further, section 47 empowers distribution licenseeto ask the consumer to furnish security for supply in pursuance of Section 43 of the Electricity Act. It is submitted that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 181 read with Section 43, 46 and 47 of the Electricity Act and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, this Hon’ble Commission framed Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Duty to supply electricity on request, Power to recover expenditure incurred in providing supply & power to require security) Regulations 2005 (herein after referred as “HERC 2005 Regulations” for sake of brevity) to provide mechanism for supply of electricity, recovery of expenditure incurred in such supply and the power to require security. It is noteworthy to mention that there has been a mushrooming of residential colonies/projects in the Gurgaon area attributable to private developers. These private developers often operate by obtaining licenses from the concerned authorities and undertaking to build/set up the requisite electrical infrastructure in the proposed project. On the basis of the aforesaid understanding to setup the electrical infrastructure, their

20

electrification plan gets approved by the discoms like the answering Respondents. However, at a belated stage, the builders merely concentrate on selling the plots to the consumers, keeping them in the dark regarding the inadequacies of the electrical infrastructure. The builder(s) have constantly been shying away from their responsibility of setting up the electrical infrastructure, harassing not only the consumers but also the discoms. It is submitted that under the Haryana Development & Regularization of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “HUDA Act” for the sake of brevity) read along with its subsequent amendments, the onus is on colonizer to carry out the necessary development work.A bare reading of Section 5 and Sub-Clause 3 of Section 3 of HUDA Act clearly indicates that the cost of development works are realized by the Colonizer from the plot holders, 30% of which is deposited in a separate account in a scheduled bank and is maintained for carrying out internal development works to be carried out by the colonizer to the satisfaction of the Director. The rest 70% is retained by him to meet the cost of land and external development works. In case, the Government or a local authority undertakes to carry out the development works, proportionate development charges are paid by the builder to the same. Despite the said being the mandate of the HUDA Act, it is often noticed that the colonizer (Petitioner herein in the present case), after obtaining the license, totally forgets its responsibilities to carry out the internal and external development works to the extent undertaken by him during the process of issuance of license.It is submitted that the money which is at the disposal of the answering Respondent is to be proportionately utilized in whole of Haryana, and cannot be just utilized towards infrastructural activities of a particular project developed by the builder/colonizer. Assuming but not conceding, in case the answering Respondent spends money (which has been kept to be utilized proportional among various areas in Haryana) towards infrastructural activities in a particular project developed by the builders/colonizer than the cost towards such infrastructure development will pass on to whole of the consumers in Haryana in the form of an enhanced tariff which is completely illegal. It is submitted that under the 2013 Regulations and the provisions of the Electricity Act read with the other relevant regulations and statutes, the Petitioner is liable to develop the electrical infrastructure in Sushant Lok –II extension.Under the Electricity Act the requirements of the specific consumers (under Section 43 of Electricity Act 2003) and distributions licenses power to recover expenditure incurred in adhering to the said specific request (under section 46 of Electricity Act 2003 and HERC 2005 Regulations), such provisions have been incorporated with an intention that the entire consumers in State (State of Haryana in the present case) should not subjected to bear the cost which has been specifically incurred for the benefit of the certain consumers residing/allotted plats/plot in the projects developed by private builders. It is submitted that due to the inadequacy of electrical infrastructure being developed by private builders, the sub-stations of the answering Respondent have become overloaded, most of the feeding lines have become overloaded, consumers

21

are experiencing frequent cuts and breakdowns and low voltages and it has become almost impossible for the licensee to release new connections in many areas any more. The most unfortunate part of this apathy on the part of developers/builders is that today, even when electricity is surplus in Haryana by more than 600 MW, the distribution licensee is not able to either release new connections or to make more power available to its customers. It is submitted that the Petitioner needs to develop the following infrastructure to cure the inadequacy in Sushant Lok – II extension:- Creation of One No 66 KV Sub Station with down linking HT/LT infrastructure to meet up the total ultimate load 87827 KVA load of Ansal Buildwell Ltd. Group .

31. Para 24- The contents of para 24 is a matter of record.

32. Para 25 – The contents of para 25 are denied.

33. Para 26- The contents of para 26 are denied. It is submitted that single point supply is mandated under the 2013 Regulations and by making such submissions the Petitioner is also trying to impute intention to the statutory regulations framed by this Hon’ble Commission.

34. Para 27 – The contents of para 27 are denied. It is denied that the answering Respondent has sanctioned 3,900 KVA for Sushant Lok – II extension.

35. Para 28 - In response to para 28 it is submitted that the electrical infrastructure of the Petitioner is grossly inadequate.

36. Paras 29 & 30 – In response to paras 29& 30 it is submitted that the metering and billing is done by the answering Respondent in accordance with the regulations framed and orders passed by this Hon’ble Commission.

37. Para 31 – It is submitted that the single point supply to Sushant Lok – II extension is taking place in accordance with 2013 Regulations framed by this Hon’ble Commission.

38. Para 32 –The contents of para 32 are denied. It is submitted that the Petitioner is under an obligation to maintain single point supply in accordance with the 2013 Regulations framed by this Hon’ble Commission.

39. Paras 33 & 34 – The contents of paras 33 & 34 are denied.

40. Para 35-38 – The contents of paras 35 to 38 are denied. The contents of paras 25 to 29 stated above are reiterated.

22

41. Paras 39 to 43 –It is submitted that the sectors which are not on single point supply are dealing with the answering Respondent. It is submitted that the present society, i.e. Sushant Lok – II extension is covered under the 2013 Regulations and as such the Petitioner is duty bound to comply with its obligations under the Act and the regulations framed thereto. The contents of the previous paragraphs are reiterated.

42. Paras44& 45 – The contents of paras 44& 45 are denied. The contents of previous paragraphs are reiterated.

43. In the facts and circumstances, as elaborated above, the present Petition may be dismissed.

III. REJOINDER TO REPLY

The Petitioner has submitted the Rejoinder to reply of Respondent No. 1, on 21.11.2014 which is given here under:

1. That Respondent No.1, in its reply, has sought to give untrue, incomplete and distorted projection of facts as well as of law and has made misconceived and erroneous submissions. The pleas taken by Respondent No.1, besides being wrong, are even vague and unsubstantiated.

2. It has been alleged by Respondent No.1 that based upon the load norms approved by the Government, all the electrical infrastructure was to be provided to the prospective consumers by the Petitioner as a part of the services being offered by the builder to the consumers. To support the alleged plea, it has been further alleged that the same has been a pre-condition of the license granted by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana. Although Respondent No.1 has shown ambit of electrical works to be included in the External Development Works, the obligation of executing the External Development Works is sought to be erroneously being projected as that of the Petitioner. While reference has been made to the provisions of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 1975 Act), erroneous submissions have been made, which are even in teeth of the provisions of 1975 Act itself.

3. The entire attempt of Respondent No.1 seems to be to circumvent its own statutory obligations/duties, the residence/ occupancy of the colony of the Petitioner for which licenses have been granted under the provisions of 1975 Act and rules framed thereunder. Concededly, the Petitioner has been granted various licenses from time to time for developing a residential colony namely Sushant Lok – II in Sector – 57, Gurgaon. The development of the Colony for which the licenses have been granted under the provisions of 1975 Act, are required to be carried out in terms thereof.

23

4. That as per the provisions of 1975 Act, the Petitioner is required to carry out the Internal Development Works, which have been defined under Section 2(ii) of the 1975 Act, which for ready reference is reproduced hereunder:-

“Section 2(ii) “internal development works” - mean

a. Metalling of roads and paving of footpath;

b. Turfing and plantation with trees of open spaces;

c. Street lighting

d. Adequate and wholesale water supply

e. Sewers and drains both for storm and sullage water and necessary provision for their treatment and disposal; and

Any other work that the Director may think necessary in the interest of proper development of the colony”.

Whereas the external development works, which are required to the executed in the periphery outside the colony for the benefit of the colony, are to be carried out by the Government of Haryana. The external development works have been defined under Section 2(g) of 1975 Act and the same is reproduced hereunder:-

“Section 2(g) "external development works" - include water supply, sewerage, drains, necessary provisions of treatment and disposal of sewage, sullage and storm water, roads, electrical works, solid waste management and disposal, slaughter houses, colleges, hospitals, stadium/sports complex, fire stations, grid sub-stations etc. and any other work which the Director may specify to be executed in the periphery of or outside colony/area for the benefit of the colony/area;”

5. That license nowhere stipulates a condition of laying down of electrical infrastructure by the Petitioner including setting up of 66 KV Sub Station, as has been alleged by Respondent No. 1. Even the Agreement, which has been executed, does not stipulate any such condition. The only obligation of the colonizer, that too, which has been provided only in the Agreement, is to arrange for the electric connection from outside source for electrification of their colony. There had been no stipulation of laying down electrical infrastructure including setting up of any Sub Station. Rather, providing electrical works and erecting Grid Sub Stations, is an obligation cast upon the State Authorities as External Development Works, which are carried out for the benefit of the colony and, for which External Development Charges (EDC), is charged by the Government of Haryana.

24

6. That perusal of Section 2 (ii) and Section 2 (g) show that it is the obligation of the Government of Haryana to carry out external development works, which include electrical works and erection of grid Sub-Stations. For the purpose of execution of external development works, the Government of Haryana charges External Development Charges (EDC). An official communication issued by the Director General Town and Country Planning dated 01.06.2009, a copy whereof is annexed hereto further corroborates the contention of the Petitioner that EDC includes cost of construction of Electric Sub-Stations. The perusal of the said letter confirms that while calculating EDC to be collected from the colonizers of Sonipat, Gurgaon and Panipat, the EDC charges include cost towards construction of 66 KV Electric Grid Sub-Station. Besides the fact that the consumers are already paying tariff for the electricity consumption and augmentation, the Government through its Town and Country Planning Department, has also been saddling the residents of colonies, for which license(s) has/have been granted under the 1975 Act, with EDC.

7. That charging tariff from the consumers, and even EDC, the developers are further being forced to pay towards the cost of repairing the distribution lines even when operational and maintenance expenses are being collected by the state distribution licesnee that is, DHVBNL. Furthermore, the state bodies are also collecting/levying charges/tax/cess in the form of infrastructure development charges and infrastructure augmentation charges under the provisions of 1975 Act. For ready reference, certain Sections providing for definitions of such charges are reproduced hereunder: -

Section 2 (hha) – “Infrastructure development charges include the cost of development of major infrastructure projects.”

Section 2 (jj) – “Major infrastructure projects include National/State Highways, Transport, Major Water Supply Scheme and Power facilities etc.”

Section 2 (hhb) – “Infrastructure augmentation charges include the cost of the augmentation of major infrastructure projects.”

8. That despite the fact that it is the statutory obligation on part of the Government Authorities including Respondent No. 1, to transmit, maintain and even upgrade the electric supply to the consumers including the ones residing in the colonies for which licenses have been granted under 1975 Act and from whom the charges are being recovered not only in form of tariff but also EDC and even IDC, Respondent No. 1 failed to carry out its obligation and rather invented another nomenclature in the name and style of ‘share cost’, to recover the cost of dedicated Sub-Station and related infrastructure from the developer including the Petitioner. The said condition has been illegally, arbitrarily and unilaterally sought to be imposed at the time when builder informs the State Authorities of the ultimate load requirement of the

25

colony. Despite the fact that the said condition of payment of share cost is illegal and arbitrary, the Petitioner, fearing that the residents of the colony being developed by it should not be left lurking in darkness, made the payment towards the share cost as demanded by Respondent No. 1 and/or other State Authorities, which in-fact is liable to be refunded.

9. That the obligation to make augmentation/up-gradation of the electrical infrastructure, if any, which has been purportedly necessitated due to revision of load norms subsequent to the providing of infrastructure by the Petitioner, which was even better than that required in terms of the electrification scheme, lies solely with Respondent no. 1, being the distribution licensee. The augmentation/up-gradation of the infrastructure cannot be an obligation of the Petitioner till infinity. In the humble submissions of the Petitioner, the revision of load norms is a recurring process and any subsequent modification cannot bind the Petitioner till perpetuity.

10. That it would also be imperative to advert to certain provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 Act, which reflect the legal and statutory obligation/ responsibility of Respondent No.1 to transmit, distribute, maintain and augment the electric supply. The 2003 Act has been enacted by the Legislature with the object to inter alia, consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to development of electricity industry, promoting comPetition therein, protecting interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas, rationalisation of electricity tariff, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. For ready reference, certain provisions of the 2003 Act are reproduced hereinafter:

Section 2(17) "distribution licensee" means a licensee authorised to operate and maintain a distribution system for supplying electricity to the consumers in his area of supply;

Section 2(22) "electrical plant" means any plant, equipment, apparatus or appliance or any part thereof used for, or connected with, the generation, transmission, distribution or supply of electricity but does not include-

a) an electric line; or b) a meter used for ascertaining the quantity of electricity supplied to any

premises; or c) an electrical equipment, apparatus or appliance under the control of a

Consumer” Section. 2(25) "electricity system” means a system under the control of a

generating company or licensee, as the case may be, having one or more – a) generating stations; or b) transmission lines; or c) electric lines and sub-stations;

26

and when used in the context of a State or the Union, the entire electricity system within the territories thereof;

Section 2(69) "sub-station" means a station for transforming or converting electricity for the transmission or distribution thereof and includes transformers converters, switchgears, capacitors, synchronous condensers, structures, cable and other appurtenant equipment and any buildings used for that purpose and the site thereof;

Section 2(70) “supply” in relation to electricity, means the sale of electricity to a licensee or consumer;

Section 2(72) “transmission lines" means all high pressure cables and overhead lines (not being an essential part of the distribution system of a licensee) transmitting electricity from a generating station to another generating station or a sub-station, together with any step-up and step-down transformers, switch-gear and other works necessary to and used for the control of such cables or overhead lines, and such buildings or part thereof as may be required to accommodate such transformers, switch-gear and other works;

Section 2(73) "transmission licensee” means a licensee authorised to establish or operate transmission lines;

Section 12. Authorised persons to transmit, supply, etc., electricity- No person shall-

a) transmit electricity; or b) distribute electricity; or c) undertake trading in electricity, unless he is authorised to do so by a license

issued under section 14, or is exempt under section13.

Section 34. Grid Standards- Every transmission licensee shall comply with such technical standards, of operation and maintenance of transmission lines, in accordance with the Grid Standards, as may be specified by the Authority.

Section 40. Duties of transmission licensees: It shall be the duty of a transmission licensee–

a) to build, maintain and operate an efficient, co-ordinated and economical inter-State transmission system or intra-State transmission system, as the case may be;

b) to comply with the directions of the Regional Load Dispatch Centre and the State Load Dispatch Centre as the case may be;

c) to provide non-discriminatory open access to its transmission system for use by-

i) any licensee or generating company on payment of the transmission charges; or

ii) any consumer as and when such open access is provided by the State Commission under sub-section (2) of section 42, on payment of the

27

transmission charges and a surcharge thereon, as may be specified by the State Commission:

Provided that such surcharge shall be utilised for the purpose of meeting the requirement of current level cross-subsidy:

Provided further that such surcharge and cross subsidies shall be progressively reduced in the manner as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission:

Provided also that the manner of payment and utilisation of the surcharge shall be specified by the Appropriate Commission:

Provided also that such surcharge shall not be leviable in case open access is provided to a person who has established a captive generating plant for carrying the electricity to the destination of his own use.

Section 42 Duties of distribution Licensee and open access. – 1) It shall be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maintain an

efficient, co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act.

2) The State Commission shall introduce open access in such phases and subject to such conditions, (including the cross subsidies, and other operational constraints) as may be specified within one year of the appointed date by it and in specifying the extent of open access in successive phases and in determining the charges for wheeling, it shall have due regard to all relevant factors including such cross subsidies, and other operational constraints:

Provided that such open access may be allowed before the cross subsidies are eliminated on payment of a surcharge in addition to the charges for wheeling as may be determined by the State Commission:

Provided further that such surcharge shall be utilised to meet the requirements of current level of cross subsidy within the area of supply of the distribution licensee:

Provided also that such surcharge and cross subsidies shall be progressively reduced in the manner as may be specified by the State Commission:

Provided also that such surcharge shall not be leviable in case open access is provided to a person who has established a captive generating plant for carrying the electricity to the destination of his own use.

Provided also that the State Commission shall, not later than five years from the date of commencement of the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 (57 of 2003) by regulations, provide such open access to all consumers who require a supply of electricity where the maximum power to be made available at any time exceeds one megawatt.

3) Where any person, whose premises are situated within the area of supply of a distribution licensee, (not being a local authority engaged in the business of distribution of electricity before the appointed date) requires a supply of electricity from a generating company or any licensee other than such distribution licensee, such person may, by notice, require the distribution

28

licensee for wheeling such electricity in accordance with regulations made by the State Commission and the duties of the distribution licensee with respect to such supply shall be of a common carrier providing non-discriminatory open access.

4) Where the State Commission permits a consumer or class of consumers to receive supply of electricity from a person other than the distribution licensee of his area of supply, such consumer shall be liable to pay an additional surcharge on the charges of wheeling, as may be specified by the State Commission, to meet the fixed cost of such distribution licensee arising out of his obligation to supply.

5) Every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of license, whichever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission.

6) Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of his grievances under sub-section (5), may make a representation for the redressal of his grievance to an authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the State Commission.

7) The Ombudsman shall settle the grievance of the consumer within such time and in such manner as may be specified by the State Commission.

8) The provisions of sub-sections (5),(6) and (7) shall be without prejudice to right which the consumer may have apart from the rights conferred upon him by those sub-sections.

Section 43 Duty to supply on request.- 1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on

an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply :

Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licenseeshall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified b commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission.

Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, “application” means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances

2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1):

29

Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission.

3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default.

Section 45. Power to recover charges -

1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the prices to be charged by a distribution licensee for the supply of electricity by him in pursuance of section 43 shall be in accordance with such tariffs fixed from time to time and conditions of his license.

2) The charges for electricity supplied by a distribution licensee shall be – a) fixed in accordance with the methods and the principles as may be specified

by the concerned State Commission; b) published in such manner so as to give adequate publicity for such

charges and prices. 3) The charges for electricity supplied by a distribution licensee may include a) a fixed charge in addition to the charge for the actual electricity supplied; b) a rent or other charges in respect of any electric meter or electrical plant

provided by the distribution licensee. 4) Subject to the provisions of section 62, in fixing charges under this section a

distribution licensee shall not show undue preference to any person or class of persons or discrimination against any person or class of persons.

5) The charges fixed by the distribution licensee shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the regulations made in this behalf by the concerned State Commission.

Section 46. Power to recover expenditure:

The State Commission may, by regulations, authorise a distribution licensee to charge from a person requiring a supply of electricity in pursuance of section 43 any expenses reasonably incurred in providing any electric line or electrical plant used for the purpose of giving that supply.

Section 62 Determination of tariff - 1) The Appropriate Commission shall determine the tariff in accordance with the provisions of this Act for –

a) supply of electricity by a generating company to a distribution licensee:

Provided that the Appropriate Commission may, in case of shortage of supply of electricity, fix the minimum and maximum ceiling of tariff for sale or purchase of electricity in pursuance of an agreement, entered into between a generating company and a licensee or between licensees, for a period not exceeding one year to ensure reasonable prices of electricity;

b) transmission of electricity ;

30

c) wheeling of electricity;

d) retail sale of electricity:

Provided that in case of distribution of electricity in the same area by two or more distribution licensees, the Appropriate Commission may, for promoting comPetition among distribution licensees, fix only maximum ceiling of tariff for retail sale of electricity.

2) The Appropriate Commission may require a licensee or a generating company to furnish separate details, as may be specified in respect of generation, transmission and distribution for determination of tariff.

3) The Appropriate Commission shall not, while determining the tariff under this Act, show undue preference to any consumer of electricity but may differentiate according to the consumer's load factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption of electricity during any specified period or the time at which the supply is required or the geographical position of any area, the nature of supply and the purpose for which the supply is required.

4) No tariff or part of any tariff may ordinarily be amended, more frequently than once in any financial year, except in respect of any changes expressly permitted under the terms of any fuel surcharge formula as may be specified.

5) The Commission may require a licensee or a generating company to comply with such procedures as may be specified for calculating the expected revenues from the tariff and charges which he or it is permitted to recover.

6) If any licensee or a generating company recovers a price or charge exceeding the tariff determined under this section, the excess amount shall be recoverable by the person who has paid such price or charge along with interest equivalent to the bank rate without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the licensee.

11. That the 2003 Act inter alia, casts certain duties/obligations upon ‘Transmitting Licensees’, which is Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) and also upon the ‘Distribution Licensees’, which are Respondent No. 1 and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVN), both being Government of Haryana Undertakings. The former is under an obligation to transmit electricity whereas the latter licensees are engaged in distribution of power in Haryana. The categorical duties cast upon the respective licensees are to facilitate and promote transmitting, wheeling and interconnection arrangement within the State of Haryana and also to transmit and supply/distribute electricity by economical and efficient utilization of electricity and further to develop and maintain the efficient, coordinated and economical distribution system in its area of supply. It is apparent from the perusal of the provisions mentioned above that the entire responsibility to transmit, distribute, augment and erect Sub-Stations has been cast upon the transmission & distribution licensees.

31

12. That apparently 2003 Act is a complete Act in itself for generation, distribution and transmitting of electricity including the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Under the provisions of the said Statute, a Commission has been setup namely Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission, for the purpose of determining the tariff for generation, transmission, distribution and wheeling of electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail, as the case may be, within the State. The Commission also promotes generation of electricity from renewable sources of energy by providing suitable measures for connectivity with the grid and sale of electricity to any person, and also specify for purchase of electricity from such sources, a percentage of the total consumption of electricity in the area of a distribution license.

13. That it is relevant to submit that this Ld. Commission in exercise of its power under the 2003 Act and Haryana Electricity Reform Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1997 Act’), passes orders yearly, for approval of Aggregate Revenue Requirements (ARR) for Transmission business and State Load Dispatch Centre (SLDC) and Transmission Tariff and SLDC charges. This Ld. Commission while exercising powers vested in it under Section 62 of 2003 Act and Section 26 of Haryana Electricity Reforms Act, 1997, passes an order, determining the ARR, for a period of one year and takes into consideration the Petition filed by HVPNL, the response of HVPNL to various quarries of the Commission, the objections/comments of the distribution licensees i.e. UHBVNL and DHBVNL (also referred to as DISCOMS). The Ld. Commission also takes into account the capital expenditure (also referred to as CAPEX) incurred not only for the purpose of commissioning and transmitting the electricity, but also for its distribution, which includes the erection/installation of various Sub Stations in the respective area of supply by licensees and also towards the augmentation of Existing Sub-Stations. Evidently, it is sole obligation of DHBVNL i.e. Respondent No. 1, to not only provide up-gradation of distribution infrastructure including the installation of transformers, feeders, etc. for the purpose of providing electricity to consumers, but also erect/install Sub-Stations, which includes even augmentation of existing Sub Stations in case of increase in load for electricity. For the said purpose, the consumers are charged Electricity Charges/tariffs, which are determined accordingly by HERC in its order.

14. That from the reading of the provisions of the 2003 Act, coupled with the orders passed by this Ld. Commission for approving ARR, it is evident that the distribution licensees have large amount of money at their disposal, which is collected in form of tariff from the consumers, to carryout transmission, maintenance and up-gradation of the electricity. However, the DISCOMS including Respondent No. 1, have not been able to augment much less provide infrastructure for existing as well as increasing requirement of electricity. They have not only failed to perform their obligations, but have even altogether discarded their obligations by choosing not to erect/install the Electric Sub-Station.

32

15. That this Ld. Commission under Section 14 of the 2003 Act had granted license to Respondent No. 1 for carrying on the business of Distribution and Retail Supply of electrical energy within the Area of Supply. As per condition no. 7 the duties of Respondent No. 1 have been enumerated as inter alia, to plan, develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical distribution system in its authorised area and supply electricity in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Act, provide open access to its Distribution System to any person as required under Section 42(2) of the Act and receive wheeling charges and / or surcharge, additional surcharge as specified by this Ld. Commission from time to time, perform the duty to supply on request as required under section 43 of the 2003 Act and always endeavour to supply adequate power of appropriate quality to consumers. Respondent No. 1 is even in gross violation of the terms of the license, which it had been granted under the provisions of the 2003 Act.

16. That it is pertinent to state that various agencies of the State of Haryana have been collecting exorbitant amounts from the residents/occupants/ citizens and keeping in view the surge in demand for electrical loads, it is the obligation of the Electrical Distribution Authorities like Respondent No. 1 alone, to undertake the augmentation of electrical infrastructure in various colonies of Gurgaon including that of the Petitioner.

17. That Respondent No.1, in its reply, has sought to agitate certain issues, which are not even germane for the purpose of redressing the grievances of the Petitioner and the prayer made by it in the above captioned Petition. It is a simplicitor plea of the Petitioner that the Petitioner, as per the load norms existing in the year 1998, had been recommended by the then Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB), an estimated load of 4,081 KVA for the Sushant Lok-II, Extn. Colony. Accordingly, a load of 4.081 MVA had been sanctioned in the year 1998. Pursuant to the said sanction load, the Petitioner installed the Distribution Sub-Stations/Transformers with the load capacity of 3900 KVA, details whereof have already been provided in the Petition. The said sub-stations were even duly inspected and necessary permission to energize the same was accorded by the Executive Engineer, DHBVN and accordingly, those were even energized. It is significant to mention that the Petitioner even deposited the share cost of 66 KVA Grid Sub Station Sector 55-56, Gurgaon keeping in view the sanctioned total load of 4.081 MVA.

Subsequently, in the year 2003, a load of 950 KW was released as bulk supply on Single Point Distribution and thereafter a load of 2350 KW was released in the year 2007. It may be significant to mention that it is not only a matter of record but rather a conceded position that the load requirement as had been projected by the Petitioner and which had been even sanctioned in 1998, was of 4.081 MVA. Even the infrastructure which has been laid in the colony is to meet the said load requirement.

In view of the matter, the Petitioner has sought indulgence of this Ld. Commission to issue appropriate directions to Respondent No.1 to release / sanction the electricity load of 1500 KVA, which is within the duly

33

certified load power capacity of requisite infrastructure laid by the Petitioner and even certified by the Competent Authority. There is no occasion and/or reason for delving into issues, which are not even germane for the said purpose.

18. That even the plea taken by Respondent No.1 that the Petitioner would be required to furnish the bank guarantees and/or share the cost in the ratio of 75:25 between it and DHBVN is illegal and erroneous. Even reference made to certain policies and/or guidelines, unilaterally at their own end, in that regard, is misconceived, misplaced besides being illegal and without jurisdiction. Without prejudice, it is humbly submitted that the said guidelines / policies cannot be made applicable keeping in view the nature of relief being sought for by the Petitioner, more so when the release of load is being sought only to the extent the same has been certified and for which requisite infrastructure has been laid. The issues which Respondent no.1 is seeking to raise and which are not even germane for the adjudication of the present lis, are pending adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.22637 of 2014; Sheetal International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others; and the same are not liable to be adverted to.

In light of the submissions made hereinabove, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Ld. Commission may be pleased to allow the Petition filed by the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.

IV. PROCEEDINGS

1. The case came up for hearing on 10.10.2014 and both the parties

Petitioner i.e. Ansal Buildwell and Respondent No. 1 i.e DHBVN were present.

Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, submitted

that their Senior Counsel had some difficulty in appearing before this Commission

and requested for a short adjournment. Shri Varun Pathak, Counsel for Respondent

No. 1 and 2 that he had no objection to the short adjournment sought by the

Petitioner.

The Commission observed that in the present case several

adjournments on the request of the Parties had been granted and the case had

lingered on for a while. However, acceding to the request of the Petitioner, the case

was adjourned but at the same time the parties were directed that in future the

parties would seek adjournments, if any, in writing well in advance so that the time of

this Commission as well as of the other party is not wasted.

34

The Petitioner was also directed to submit a copy of the licence

granted to them by the Director Town & Country Planning Department (DTCP),

Haryana as well as a copy of the agreement, if any, with the DTCP.

Further, Respondents were also asked to submit the existing capacity

of the sub-station catering to the electricity supply in Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) falling in

Sector- 57, Gurgaon as well as the details of the existing load. The Respondent

No. 1 was also directed to submit the calculation of the ultimate load of 23 MVA as

well as the basis on which the same was calculated along with the copy of the old

and new load norms. The case was adjourned to 27.10.2014.

2. The case was accordingly called for hearing on 27.10.2014.

The Ld. Advocate, Shri Ashish Chopra, Counsel for the Petitioner,

submitted that as per the interim order dated 10.10.2014 passed by this Commission

they were to place on record certain documents / data as well as file a rejoinder to

the voluminous reply filed by the Respondent Nigam and he sought three weeks

adjournment in the matter.

Shri Varun Pathak appearing for Respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted

that this Commission vide the ibid Interim Order had directed them to file calculation

of the ultimate load of 23 MVA as well as the basis on which the same had been

calculated including a copy of the old and new load norms. He further submitted that

he would have to obtain approval of the documents/details from the Respondent

Nigam which would take some more time. He also requested for the adjournment.

The Commission reiterated that in the present case several

adjournments on the request of the Parties have been granted and the case has

lingered on for a while. However, acceding to the request of the Petitioner for

adjournment which was not opposed by the Respondent, the case was adjourned

and the Commission allowed time up to 14.11.2014 to file all the documents /

calculations including rejoinder, if any, by the parties and the case was adjourned till

17.11.2014.

3. Both the matters were further heard on 17.11.2014 as scheduled.

Shri Ashish Chopra, Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

submitted that the scope of present case before this Commission is limited to

35

release of additional load of 1.5 MVA in Sushant Lok-II (Extension) and Sushant

Lok-III, Gurgaon by the Respondent Nigam (DHBVNL). He submitted that for release

of the same, as per the old load norms, this Commission may independently verify

whether the current electrical infrastructure of the Petitioner is capable of taking the

additional load, as prayed for or not. The Ld. Counsel, Shri Chopra argued that all

other issues raised by the Respondent Nigam i.e. furnishing cost, Bank Guarantee

on account of inadequate development of infrastructure and who is to bear the cost

etc. are sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP

No. 24657 of 2013. Hence, no parallel proceedings to adjudicate such matter ought

to be pursued in this Commission.

He prayed that either this Commission consider their prayer and direct

the Respondent Nigam to release the additional load as already sanctioned or

adjourn the case till the Hon’ble High Court decides the matter in CWP No. 24657 of

2013.

The Ld. Advocate, Shri Varun Pathak appearing for the Respondent

(DHBVN) argued that in case the Petitioner is of the view that all the issues sought

to be agitated before this Commission are covered in the Petition before the Hon’ble

High Court then he may withdraw the present Petition before this Commission. He

further argued that the release of load as sought by the Petitioner was in a phased

manner. Hence, adequacy of the electrical infrastructure has to be assessed as per

load norms of Nigam presently in vogue.

He further submitted an Affidavit with regard to the directions given by

the Commission vide Order dated 10.10.2014 and provided a copy of same to the

Petitioner’s counsel. Sh. Varun Pathak, the Respondent’s Counsel opposed the

adjournment sought by the Petitioner.

The Commission observed that vide interim Order dated 10.10.2014

the Commission had directed the Petitioner to submit a copy of the relevant licence

granted by the DTCP including a copy of the agreement, if any. Respondents were

also directed to submit the details of the sub-station capacity and existing load.

Further, this Commission vide Order dated 27.10.2014 had directed the Petitioner to

36

file all the documents/calculation including rejoinder by 14.11.2014. The Commission

has took serious note of the fact that the Petitioner had not complied with the Orders

of this Commission and directed the Petitioner to submit all the details/ documents

as sought by this Commission within three days from the date Order failing which the

Petition would be dismissed for non prosecution.

Keeping in view the prayer of Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the

Petitioner and in the interest of natural justice, further three days time was granted to

the Petitioner for placing on record the documents/data as well as rejoinder. The

case was listed for hearing on 28.11.2014 for arguments.

4. Matter was called for hearing on 28.11.2014 as scheduled.

Sh. Varun Pathak appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted

that he had not been delivered copy of the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner before the

Hon’ble Commission on 21.11.2014 and therefore, he was unable to argue the

matter and prayed for adjournment of the case to some other suitable date. The

Commission considered the prayer of Ld. Counsel for adjournment and found the

same to be genuine. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 05.12.2014.

5. Matter was heard on 5.12.2014 by the Commission as per schedule.

Both the parties, Petitioner as well as the Respondents argued at length.

V. ARGUMENTS

The Petitioner’s Counsel Shri Ashish Chopra in his arguments

reiterated that the Respondent No. 1 is not releasing the extension of balance load

of 1500 KW in his colony Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) on the plea that no infrastructure is in

place, where as he has installed 3900 KVA capacity and the only 2350 KW load with

2611 KVA contract demand is presently sanctioned and being served by the

Respondent Nigam under Single Point Bulk Supply. Referring to the contentions of

the Respondent in its reply, he stated that there is no such obligation on the

Petitioner under the licence (s) granted by Director, Town and Country Planning,

Haryana for development of electrical infrastructure and construction of sub-station.

He further added that the Respondent recovers the cost of sub-stations

through ARR in the tariff and the EDC are also charged by the Haryana Urban

Development Authority for the development of external works and the Petitioner

37

should not be burdened any more. He further argued that the policy framed by the

Respondent Nigam for up-grading electrical infrastructure in the area developed by

the colonizers/developers circulated on 14.12.2010 and the letter demanding a sum

of Rs. 4.61 crore on account of alleged inadequacy of the distribution infrastructure

in the colony of the Petitioner is not justified and the claim by the Respondent is not

applicable on his colony.

He also refuted the claim of the Respondent Nigam that the Petitioner

was duty bound to comply with all the Rules and Sales Circulars of the answering

Respondent and the previous sanction of the load were subject to revision of load

norms from time to time as per Regulations framed by the Commission.

The Petitioner maintained that the development of the colonies for

which the licences have been granted under the provision of 1975 HUDA Act

(hereinafter to be called 1975 Act) was required to be carried out in terms thereof.

As per the provisions of the 1975 Act, the Petitioner is required to carry out the

internal development works which have been defined under section 2(ii) which

include street lighting only as far as electrical works are concerned. However, the

external development works, which are required to be executed in the periphery

outside the colony for the benefit of the colony, were to be carried out by the

Government Agency.

He further stated that the external development works have been

defined under Section 2(g) of 1975 Act, which include electrical works & the grid

sub-station. He further stated that the licence granted by DTCP, Haryana nowhere

stipulates a condition of laying down of electrical infrastructure by the Petitioner,

including setting up of 66 KV sub-station as alleged by Respondent No. 1. The only

obligation as per agreement is to arrange for the electrical connection from outside

source for electrification of their colony.

He further added that providing electrical works and erecting grid sub-

stations was an obligation cast upon the State Authorities being External

Development Works which are carried out for the benefit of the colony and for which

External Development Charges (EDC) is charged by the Government of Haryana.

38

The Commission asked the Petitioner’s Counsel that whether the

additional load of 1500 KW demanded by the Petitioner would be sufficient for

meeting his requirement, the Counsel replied in affirmative and said that it will suffice

for three years.

He further submitted that his Petition for Sushant Lok-III is similar, and

requested to pass an order accordingly.

The Counsel for Respondents Shri Varun Pathak said that the scope of

this Petition was being enlarged by the Petitioner. Stating the brief facts of the case

as given in the Petition, the Counsel explained that the release of load was sought

by the Petitioner in phased manner. Initially, the electrical infrastructure was

approved by taking diversity factor of 0.25. However, the same had been revised as

per new norms to 0.4 and therefore the Petitioner was required to install the

electrical infrastructure of the capacity as per new norms. He denied the charge that

the Respondent compelled the Petitioner to take Single Point Supply Connection for

his colony and referred the letter dated 7th September, 2001 written by the Petitioner

to the Executive Engineer, Suburban Division, Gurgaon, wherein he had given

intention to avail the facility of single point HT connection at 11 KV for his colony.

He further pointed out that as per conditions no. 4 and 17 of the letter

dated 26.03.2007 for the sanction of the extension of load of the Petitioner from 950

KW to 2350 KW all other formalities required as per instructions issued/adopted by

the Nigam from time to time were to be completed and the sanctioned load was

required to be built up within six months from the release of the connection failing

which the sanctioned load was liable to be reduced to the actual availed load.

The Respondent’s Counsel further referred HERC Regulations the

(Single Point Supply to residential colonies or Office –Cum-Residential Complexes

of Employers, Group Housing Societies and Commercial-Cum-Residential and

Complexes of Developers), Regulations 2013 and stated that as per Regulation 5 of

the ibid Regulations, in case of developer seeking Single Point Supply, the

Distribution Licensee shall ensure before release of Single Point Supply connection

that the developer has completed installation of complete electrical infrastructure

within the complex as per approved electrical layout plan.

39

He further supplied a copy of letter written by HUDA to DHBVN

indicating that the EDC has not been charged for the area falling in old Sectors i.e

Sector 1 to Sector 57, Gurgaon and pleaded that the Petitioner was required to build

the electrical infrastructure both internal as well as external as per the new norms of

the Nigam.

He further argued that it was mandatory for the Petitioner to seek

connection from the utilities under the licence granted by the Director Town &

Country Planning, Haryana and quoted Para b (vii) of the Agreement dated 14th

May, 2004 signed by the Petitioner in respect of the licence (s) 56-60 granted to him

by DTCP for the development of this colony.

He further maintained that the Respondent had never sanctioned load

of 3900 KVA to the Petitioner and justified his stand to apply new norms for creating

electrical infrastructure by the Petitioner in his colonies.

He further impressed that if the developers do not provide the

requisite electrical infrastructure, the consumers in these colonies developed by the

Petitioner would suffer and also submitted that it was the discretion of the

Respondent whether to grant release of further load or not in such cases.

During the course of arguments, the Counsel for Petitioner submitted

copy of receipts of payment towards share cost made to the Respondent against the

loads of 4.081 MVA and 5.05 MVA for the Sushant Lok-II and Sushant Lok-III

respectively. The copies of the same were also supplied to the Respondent. The

Counsel for Respondent requested the Commission to allow sometime for the

verification from the record, whether the same pertained to the share cost of the sub-

station taken from the Petitioner for the two colonies. The Commission allowed the

Respondent to submit its reply within a week.

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the load of the

occupied plots at present and the ultimate load requirement as per present norms in

these two colonies with complete break up details (Plot wise/category wise) within a

week’s time. The Commission also directed the Petitioner to submit status of validity

of the licences and copies of the extensions granted by the Director, Town and

Country Planning, Haryana for the development of these colonies.

40

The Commission further directed the Residents Welfare Association

Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) and Sushant Lok-III and Superintending Engineer (OP),

DHBVNL and Superintending Engineer (TS), HVPNL, Gurgaon to be present on the

next date of hearing along with relevant records in respect of 11kv feeders and the

sub-station feeding these two connections and their loading position and the date of

hearing was fixed for 19.12.2014.

Matter was heard on 19.12.2014. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent

submitted that the similar matter is under adjudication in the Hon’ble Punjab &

Haryana High Court and requested to adjourn the case sine-die. He further

confirmed that the share cost against these two connections had been received by

him, though as per old rates. He further submitted that for seeking any interim relief

for release of load, the Petitioner was required to pay the share cost at prevalent

rates and give the Bank Guarantee for completing the Electrical Layout and

infrastructure as per new norms. He further stated that the share money already paid

would be adjusted/refunded after completion of sub-station by the Petitioner.

The Counsel for the Petitioner objected the adjournment of the case

sine-die as pleaded by the Respondent Counsel and requested the Commission to

decide the case on merits. It was further requested by the Counsel of the Petitioner

to grant some time to respond to the proposal of the Respondent.

Commission observed that the load requirement of the colonies filed by

the Petitioner as well as the Respondents did not match with each other.

Commission directed both the parties, Petitioner as well as the Respondents to

reconcile and submit the load being drawn from the Discoms, the load requirement

as per present occupation and ultimate load required as per new norms of the

Discoms for both the colonies considering the domestic and commercial loads

separately. It was further directed that the feeding arrangement for both the colonies

including the commercial load be also provided by the Respondent.

The Commission directed both the parties to hold a meeting to

reconcile the load requirements as submitted by them and feeding arrangement in

the office of SE/Op, DHBVNL, Gurgoan on 23.12.14 at 3:00 P.M and to submit the

detailed report along with the single line diagram of the feeding arrangements

41

including feeding sub-stations and the loading position of these sub-stations, to the

Commission by 30th December, 2014.

The Petitioner was also directed to submit the copies of revalidated

licences before 30th December, 2014.

Matter was further heard on 08.01.2015. The Counsel for Respondent

submitted that the projections of the ultimate load requirements for both the colonies

have been reconciled by both Petitioner and Respondent and stated that the said

information needed to be submitted on Affidavit by the Petitioner. He further

requested for adjournment for a week for arguments before the final order.

The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner agreed to this and submitted that

there was no dispute with regard to ultimate load as far as domestic and commercial

loads were concerned. However, in the absence of norms for calculation of load for

common utility services, there was difference of opinion among the Petitioner and

the Respondent, in respect of load factor to be considered to arrive at ultimate load

for these common services/utilities areas. He requested the Commission to take a

view on the issue and decide the norms to be taken for common utility services.

The Commission after considering the request of both the parities,

adjourned the case for 12.01.2015 and directed the Petitioner to submit requisite

information on Affidavit.

Both the parties attended the hearing on 12.01.2015, the Respondent’s

Counsel submitted that the information with regard to ultimate load, assessed for

both the colonies (Sushant Lok-II, Sushant Lok-II Extension and Sushant Lok-III) of

the Petitioner had been reconciled. The Counsel for the Petitioner stated that, he

agreed to the ultimate load assessed in respect of domestic and non-domestic

categories of loads of these colonies, but he differed on the load assessed by the

Respondent for the utilities for which the land is earmarked by the developer in its

layout plan of these colonies.

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the requisite

information on Affidavit within two days. However, the Petitioner made a request

vide letter dated 14.01.2015 to allow him to file the information by 16.01.2015.

Petitioner submitted the information on Affidavit, stating that ultimate load demand of

42

both the colonies have been reconciled by him as well as the Respondent and

further submitted the copy of letters dated 04.04.2014, 24.06.2014 and 16.07.2014

addressed to the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana for

renewal of licences of these colonies.

VI. Commission’s observations

The Commission observes as under:-

1. That Petitioner is a company engaged into the business of Real Estate

Developer in the name of Ansal Buildwell Limited. The Petitioner has taken

licence(s) from the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana for the

development of two colonies namely Sushant Lok-II (Extension) and Sushant Lok-III

in Sector-57, Gurgaon.

The Petitioner got his electrical scheme (Electrical Layout Plan)

approved from Respondent No. 1 on 28.12.1998 for Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) for

ultimate load requirement of 4080 KVA and as per the load norms prevailing at that

point of time.

Initially the Petitioner got a Bulk Supply connection released for 950

KW load on 16.05.2003. The sanction load was later enhanced to 2350 KW with

contract demand of 2611 KVA for Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) vide sanction letter dated

26.03.2007.

The Petitioner have stated that it has installed the Internal Distribution

Infrastructure (11 KV and LT lines) with distribution transformers of aggregating

capacity of 3900 KVA in Sushant Lok-II (Ext.).

2. The Respondent Nigam circulated policy for up-grading electrical

infrastructure in the area developed by the colonizers /builders/developers on

14.12.2010 which inter-alia provided that for the properties which were developed

prior to the revision of load norms in 2006, the sharing of the cost of up-grading the

electrical infrastructure for removing the inadequacy is to be borne by the developer

upto 75% i.e. such cost to be shared in 75:25 by the Developer and the Respondent

i.e. DHBVN.

43

The Respondent Nigam raised a demand of Rs. 4.61 crore on the

Petitioner on 17.02.2011 on account of removing the inadequacy of the electrical

infrastructure provided by the Petitioner in the colony Sushant Lok-II (Ext.).

3. The Petitioner submitted that his officials kept meeting from time to

time with DHBVN officials to explain that the said policy is general policy and the

case of Petitioner company is very specific and on different footing and needs to be

segregated from the other developers who are not having bulk supply and where the

supply is being carried out by DHBVN.

The Petitioner on 27.05.2011 represented to the SE/Op., DHBVNL,

Gurgaon of the Respondent Nigam and explained the whole case thread bare in

meeting and requested to enhance his load by 1500 KW for meeting the requirement

of the residents of this colony. He also asserted that even with this increase in load

the same will remain within the initially approved capacity of the infrastructure.

The Petitioner submitted that he had meetings and approached

Responding No. 1 and 2 several times requesting them for the redressal of the

consumers’ grievances in relation to the direct supply/enhancement of electric load

in Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) but Respondent No. 1 and 2 have been avoiding and

ultimately refused the request of the Petitioner to enhance the sanctioned load by

1500 KW. The Petitioner has accordingly approached the Commission with the

prayer to direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to release the further load of 1500 KW

in Sushant Lok-II (Ext.), Gurgaon and until the grant of same, in the interim, direct

them to release 1000 KVA immediately. Alternatively, it has been prayed that the

Respondent No. 1 and 2 be directed to perform their statutory obligation qua

Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) colony, Gurgaon being their area of supply and to supply

electricity in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act.

4. In their reply to the Petition, the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that

as per one of the licence conditions, the Petitioner is to provide adequate electrical

infrastructure for its developed colonies. It has further been submitted that the

electrical infrastructure required to be developed needs to be adequate enough to

sustain the ultimate load in accordance with the load norms approved by the

44

Government of Haryana and the Rules and Regulations provided under the

Electricity Act, 2003.

It has also been submitted that as per the guidelines for Electrification

of private colony/HUDA Sectors and Housing Board Colonies, issued by the earst

while Haryana State Electricity Board on 16.08.1988, if a grid sub-station is required

to meet the load requirement, its cost is to be borne by the colonizer along with the

cost of land.

It has further been submitted by the Respondent No. 1 that in-spite of

the onus on the Petitioner for providing the electrical infrastructure for the

prospective consumers in his colony, the adequate electrical infrastructure in respect

of the ultimate load has still not been developed by the Petitioner and consequently

the Distribution Licensee cannot give the new connections for the area for which the

external electrical infrastructure is inadequate.

The Respondent No. 1 has stated in its reply that at the time of

entering of private builders/developers in the Real Estate, as a competitor to the

Government owned HUDA, there was a sense of mutual interest and faith between

the licensee and Real Estate developers. It was expected that these builders and the

developers would show enough maturity and not shy away from their responsibility

of erecting an adequate electrical infrastructure for their residents. But when the

developers, in most of the cases, did not prefer to fulfill their obligations under the

law and started subjecting their residents to suffer, the licensee had to think of some

means and ways by which the builders/developers could be asked to fulfill their

obligations before leaving it entirely to the fate of poor residents. One of such ways

DHBVN could deliberate upon, was to ask the builders/developers to furnish a Bank

Guarantee as a measure of security from the builder so that in case the builder/

developer does not come forward to create the infrastructure, DHBVN would get it

done at the cost of builder by invoking the Bank Guarantee.

The Respondent No.1 has submitted that DHBVN has never refused

the extension of load to any builder/ developer. At the same time, the minimum

security in the shape of Bank Guarantee has been asked for to secure the interest of

45

residents/plot holders of these colonies etc. Partial loads have also been allowed

where ever the builder/developers have deposited such Bank Guarantees.

The Respondent No. 1 has also submitted that for Sushant Lok-II

(Ext.), the current infrastructure which needs to be installed is 39949 KVA. It has

been further submitted by the Respondent No. 1 that the Petitioner has never

actually furnished Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) with adequate electrical infrastructure and is

asking sanction of additional load which the Petitioner has not applied for till date.

The Respondent No. 1 has submitted that the Petitioner is incorrect to

say that he has installed the requisite sub-stations as only a capacity of 3900 KVA of

distribution transformers has been created whereas the required capacity as per

Respondent is 39949 KVA. The Petitioner is having a system distribution

transformers of aggregated capacity of 3900 KVA connected with the distribution

system of the licensee with sanctioned load of 2350 KW and 2611 KVA contract

demand presently sanctioned by the Respondent Nigam. Nevertheless, his

requirement is more. The load of 3900 KVA claimed by the Petitioner in para 26 of

the petition was never sanctioned as stated by the Respondent. However, the

Commission observed that 3900 KVA is not the connected load but distribution

transformer capacity installed by the Petitioner against the electrical

scheme/electrical layout plan of 4080 KVA initially approved by the Respondent

Nigam as per prevailing norms at that point of time.

The Respondent has categorically stated in his reply that the Petitioner

is duty bound to develop the electrical infrastructure for Sushant Lok-II (Ext.). It has

been submitted by the Respondent No. 1 that the extension of load cannot be

granted unless the Petitioner develops the infrastructure as per the latest norms.

The Respondent Nigam has further stated that while conveying the

sanction of enhancement in load vide letter dated 26.03.2007, it had clearly been

mentioned in the said letter that the petitioner shall comply with the Sales Circulars.

The sanction of the load and further enhancement were subject to the compliance of

instructions issued from time to time by the Respondent Nigam.

5. The Commission observed that as per decision taken in a meeting at

the Government level on 22.07.2010, Sales Circular No. D-15/2010 dated

46

14.12.2010 was issued by the Respondent No. 1 for recovery of cost of inadequacy

from the builders/developers, so that the inadequacy could be made up by the

Respondent Nigam.

The Respondent No. 1 has submitted that due to the inadequacy of

electrical infrastructure being developed by private builders, the Respondent’s sub-

stations and the feeding lines have become overloaded. The consumers are

experiencing frequent cuts, breakdowns and low voltages and it has become almost

impossible for the licensee to release new connections in many areas. It has further

been submitted by the Respondent No. 1 that the Petitioner needs to develop 66 KV

sub-station with down linking HT/LT infrastructure to meet the total ultimate load

87827 KVA load of the Ansal Buildwell Limited Group.

6. The Commission observes that the Respondent No. 1 has submitted

that it had served a notice dated 06.09.2013 upon the Petitioner for development of

the electrical infrastructure and raised a demand Rs. 113.07 crore from the

Petitioner to cure the inadequacy in electrical infrastructure in the colonies

developed by the Ansal Buildwell Group.

7. The Petitioner in his rejoinder submitted that the licence granted to it

for developing Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) nowhere stipulate a condition of laying down of

electrical infrastructure by the Petitioner including setting up of 66 KV sub-station as

has been alleged by Respondent No. 1. It has been further submitted by the

Petitioner that perusal of Section 2 (ii) and Section 2 (g) of HUDA Act of 1975 show

that it is the obligation of the Government of Haryana to carry out external

development works, which include electrical works and erection of grid Sub-Stations.

For the purpose of execution of external development works, the Government of

Haryana charges External Development Charges (EDC). The Petitioner has further

annexed the copy of an official communication issued by the Director General, Town

and Country Planning dated 01.06.2009, which as stated further corroborates the

contention of the Petitioner that EDC includes cost of construction of Electric Sub-

stations. It has been stated that the perusal of the said letter confirms that while

calculating EDC to be collected from the colonizers of Sonipat, Gurgaon and

Panipat, the EDC charges included cost towards construction of 66 KV Electric Grid

47

Sub-stations. Besides the fact that the consumers are already paying tariff for the

electricity consumption and augmentation, the Government through its Town and

Country Planning Department, has also been saddling the residents of colonies, for

which licence(s) has/have been granted under the 1975 Act, with EDC. It has been

further mentioned that even the agreement which has been executed, does not

stipulate any such condition and that the only obligation of the colonizer provided in

the agreement is to arrange for electrical connection from outside source for

electrification of their colony.

8. The Petitioner has submitted that despite the fact that it is the statutory

obligation on the part of the Government Authorities including Respondent No. 1, to

transmit, maintain and even upgrade the electric supply to the consumers including

the ones residing in the colonies for which licences have been granted under 1975

Act and from whom the charges are being recovered not only in form of tariff but

also EDC and even IDC. Respondent No. 1 failed to carry out its obligation and

rather invented another nomenclature in the name and style of ‘share cost’, to

recover the cost of dedicated sub-station and related infrastructure from the

developer including the Petitioner. The said condition it has been stated, illegally,

arbitrarily and unilaterally sought to be imposed at the time when builder informs the

State Authorities of the ultimate load requirement of the colony and despite the fact

that the said condition of payment of share cost is illegal and arbitrary, the Petitioner,

fearing that the residents of the colony being developed by it may not be left lurking

in darkness, made the payment towards the share cost as demanded by

Respondent No. 1 and/or other State Authorities, which in-fact is liable to be

refunded.

9. The Commission observes that the Petitioner had deposited the share

cost of 66 KV grid sub-station, Sector -56, Gurgaon for load of 4.08 MVA for Sushant

Lok-II (Ext.) at the rates prevalent at the time.

10. The Petitioner has submitted that the obligation to make

augmentation/up-gradation of the electrical infrastructure, if any, which has been

purportedly necessitated due to revision of load norms subsequent to the providing

48

of infrastructure by the Petitioner, which was even better than that required in terms

of the electrification scheme, lies solely with Respondent no. 1, being the Distribution

Licensee. It has been stated that the augmentation/up-gradation of the infrastructure

cannot be an obligation of the Petitioner till infinity and that it is a humble submission

of the Petitioner that the revision of load norms is a recurring process and any

subsequent modification cannot bind the Petitioner till perpetuity.

11. The Petitioner in its rejoinder has further submitted that it is apparent

from the perusal of the relevant provisions (as mentioned in its submission) that the

entire responsibility to transmit, distribute, augmentation or erect sub-station has

been cast upon the transmission and distribution licensees. It was further submitted

by the Petitioner that the HERC while determining Annual Aggregated Revenue

Requirement for the licensees also take into account the capital expenditure incurred

not only for the purpose of commissioning and transmitting the electricity, but also

for its distribution, which includes the erection/installation of various sub-stations in

the respective area of supply by licensees and also towards the augmentation of

existing sub-stations. Evidently, it is sole obligation of Respondent No. 1, not only to

provide up-gradation of distribution infrastructure including the installation of

transformers, feeders, etc. for the purpose of providing electricity to consumers, but

also erect/install sub-stations, which includes even augmentation of existing sub-

stations in case of increase in load for electricity. For the said purpose, the

consumers are charged electricity charges/tariffs, which are determined accordingly

by HERC in its Order.

It has been submitted by the Petitioner that various agencies of the

State of Haryana have been collecting exorbitant amounts from the

residents/occupants/citizens and keeping in view the surge in demand for electrical

loads, it is the obligation of the Electrical Distribution Authorities like Respondent No.

1 alone, to undertake the augmentation of electrical infrastructure in various colonies

of Gurgaon including that of the Petitioner.

49

It has been further submitted that even the plea taken by Respondent

No.1 that the Petitioner would be required to furnish the Bank Guarantees and/or

share the cost in the ratio of 75:25 between it and DHBVN is illegal and erroneous

and that the reference made to certain policies and/or guidelines, unilaterally at their

own end, in that regard, is misconceived, misplaced besides being illegal and

without jurisdiction and further submitted that the said guidelines/policies cannot be

made applicable keeping in view the nature of relief being sought for by the

Petitioner, more so when the release of load is being sought only to the extent the

same has been certified and for which requisite infrastructure has been laid. It has

further been stated that the issue which Respondent no.1 is seeking to raise and

which are not even germane for the adjudication of the present lis, are pending

adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.22637 of 2014,

Sheetal International Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Others, and the same are

not liable to be adverted to.

However, on enquiry of the Commission, both the parties admitted that

there is no stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court on this issue.

12. The Respondent No.1 has placed on record on 17.11.2013 the copy of

calculations for the ultimate load required for this colony and the copy of relevant

load norms of 2006 and 2011, based on which the deficiency in electrical

infrastructure provided by the Petitioner has been calculated. Further, the

Respondent No. 1 in compliance to the Commission interim order has submitted the

statement of ultimate load for residential (domestic category), commercial and the

common utility areas in the colonies Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) and Sushant Lok-III of the

Petitioner.

The Petitioner has also filed the copies of licence (s) and the

agreements entered into by the Petitioner with Director General, Town and Country

Planning, Haryana. Further, the Petitioner also submitted the requisite information in

respect of ultimate load for the colonies duly reconciled with the Respondent Nigam

and the requisite information about renewal of licences for these colonies along with

the occupancy position.

50

The Commission observes that both the Petitioner and the

Respondent No.1 agrees to the ultimate load assessed for the residential and the

commercial category but they have difference of opinion for the assessment

expected load for the common utilities services such as Schools, Religious

Buildings, Dispensaries, Sub-Post Offices, Fire Stations etc.

The Commission further observes that both the parties agree that load

requirement for residential and commercial category as per new revised load norms

for Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) is 8552.22 KVA and 2623.46 KVA respectively. However,

the load for common utility areas have been projected as 12990. 63 KVA by the

Respondent against the 1649.60 KVA assessed by the Petitioner. The basic

difference in calculation of this load by the Petitioner and the Respondent, it is

observed, is that the assumption of demand factor. It has been submitted that as per

the approved layout of the colony, the total area for these common utilities like

Schools, Dispensaries, Religious places, Post-offices etc. is 22.921 acres. There is

no guidelines as to how much load is to be taken for these common utility areas and

also because these activities are not residential in nature, the Respondent has

calculated the ultimate load considering these as commercial load at FAR of 1 and

the ultimate load @ 21 KW per 100 Sq. meter which workout to be 12990.63 KVA.

But the Petitioner has raised objection that considering these common

utility loads as commercial @ 21 KW per 100 Sq. meter is not justified and the

Petitioner calculated the ultimate load of these areas @ 4 KW per 100 Sq. meter and

applied a demand factor of 0.4 as applicable to domestic category. Accordingly the

load has been worked out by the Petitioner is 1649.60 KVA.

Supplementing his contention, the Petitioner has submitted that the

school buildings are normally designed to have maximum natural light in the class

room/activity rooms, corridors and stair-case to minimize the requirement of lighting.

The operating timings of the schools is 7:30 A.M to 2:00 P.M which is very low as

compared to commercial building. Also schools have holidays, weekends and

vacation in the summer and winter seasons. Therefore, the commercial load factor

should not be taken for the school and requested to take the norms of domestic

category (4 KW per 100 Sq. meter) which is normal residential load with air

51

conditioners. Petitioner has advocated same logic for the Religious Buildings and

other utilities, Dispensaries, Sub-post offices, Fire Stations and Petrol pumps.

The Commission observes that there is a huge difference in the load

assessed for common utility areas by the Respondent No.1 and the Petitioner as per

their own understanding/assumptions. The Petitioner has prayed that the

Commission may decide the issue regarding ultimate load to be taken for these

common areas so that the final liability on the part of Petitioner can be arrived at.

The Commission has further noted that the Petitioner has applied for

renewal of various licences obtained for the development of the colony and

deposited the requisite amount/fees with the Director General, Town and Country

Planning, Haryana.

VII Commission’s Analysis and Order

1. The Commission has considered the submissions made by the

Petitioner in the Petition/Rejoinder, submission made in the reply filed by the

Respondent No. 1 and the pleadings made by both the parties and has also critically

examined the entire material/information placed on the record by both the parties.

The Commission finds that the Petitioner company, M/S Ansal

Buildwell, is developing the areas/colonies named Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) in Gurgaon

under the licence (s) granted by the Director General, Town and Country Planning,

Haryana under Haryana Development and Regularization of the Urban Area Act,

1975. The electrical layout plan of the colony Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) was approved by

Respondent No. 2 (Chief Engineer Operation, HSEB) on 28.12.1998 and the load of

was assessed as 4.081 MVA as per load norms prevailing in 1998.

The Petitioner has installed the electrical infrastructure i.e. 11 KV lines,

LT lines and the distribution sub-stations/Transformers of 3900 KVA capacity in

phases till 2013. The Petitioner, initially obtained a Single Point Bulk Supply

Connection for 950 KW on 16.05.2003 for its residential and commercial category of

loads and further got it enhanced to 2350 KW with contract demand of 2611 KVA in

March, 2007.

The Petitioner approached the Nigam in 2011 for release of additional

1500 KW of load on the plea that sanctioned was grossly inadequate as habitants

52

and the load demand had substantially increased over the past four years. It has

been submitted by the Petitioner that the said enhancement of the load by 1500 KW

is within the duly certified load power capacity of the infrastructure laid by the

Petitioner and even certified by the competent authority.

The Respondent Nigam declined to consider the request and as per its

submission the Respondent Nigam cannot give new connection for the area where

electrical network is inadequate. Respondent Nigam also submitted that as per the

conditions of the licence granted to the licensee for developing Sushant Lok-II (Ext.)

it has to provide adequate electrical infrastructure for its developed colony and that

the electrical infrastructure so developed need to be adequate enough to sustain the

ultimate load in accordance with load norms approved by the Government of

Haryana and the Rules and Regulations under the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. Based on the facts placed before the Commission, the following issues

are framed:-

1) Whether the Petitioner is required to provide the electrical infrastructure (internal and external) under the terms and conditions of the licence (s) granted by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana for development of colonies/residential/non-residential areas as well as under the provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations made there under?

2) Whether the electrical layout plan and the electrical infrastructure approved for a colony of a developer/colonizer will require revision if during the course of development by the developer/agency, the norms of calculating ultimate load are revised?

3) Whether the policy for charging the cost of curing inadequacy in the electrical infrastructure provide by the developer/colonizer is applicable on Bulk Supply Single Point Distribution or it pertains to the areas/colonies where DHBVN is the distributor?

4) Whether the Petitioner has installed the electrical infrastructure of required capacity for Sushant Lok-II (Ext.)?

5) Whether the Respondent can ask for the share cost/Bank Guarantee for the inadequacy in electrical infrastructure in respect of colony being developed by the Petitioner?

53

The Commission examined the above issues as under:-

Issue no. 1

Whether the Petitioner is required to provide the electrical infrastructure (internal and external) under the terms and conditions of the licence (s) granted by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana for development of colonies/residential/non-residential areas as well as under the provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations made there under?.

The Commission observes that as per licence(s) issued by the

Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana for the lands for development of the

said colonies by the Petitioner and the Agreement entered into by the Petitioner with

the DTCP, Haryana, the Petitioner is obliged to provide the electrical infrastructure

also in the area of his development as per provisions in the licence. Para b (vii) of

the Agreement signed on 14th May, 2004 in respect of licence(s) 56-60 issued to the

Petitioner for Sushant Lok –II (Ext.) reads as under:-

“The colonizer will arrange the electric connection from outside source for

electrification of their colony from HVPN. If they fail to provide electric connection from

HVPNL the Director, Town & County Planning will recover that cost from the colonizer and

deposit it with HVPN. However, the installation of internal electricity distribution infrastructure

as per the peak load requirement of the colony shall remain the responsibility of the

colonizer, for which the colonizer will be required to get the “electrical (distribution) services

plan/estimates” approved from the agency responsible for installation of “external electrical

services”, i.e. HVPN/UHBVN/DHBVN, Haryana, and complete the same before obtaining

completion certificate for the colony.”

The above condition/provision of the Agreement clearly puts the

obligation on the Petitioner for the installation of internal electricity distribution

infrastructures as per the peak load requirement of the colony. It clearly provides

that the Petitioner colonizer will be required to get the electrical distribution services

plan/estimates approved from the agencies responsible for installation of external

electrical services i.e. HVPN/UHBVN/DHBVN Haryana and complete the same

before obtaining completion certificate for the colony.

As per the said Agreement, the colonizer is also required to arrange

the electrical connection from HVPN for electrification of its colonies and in case of

54

failure on the part of colonizer to provide electric connection from the HVPN, the

Director, Town and Country Planning will recover that cost from the colonizer and

deposit it with HVPN.

The Commission further observes that sub-regulations 4.3, 4.5.2 and

4.10.1 of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Duty to supply electricity

on request and Power to recover expenditure incurred in providing supply and

Power to require security) Regulations, 2005 framed under section 46 of the

Electricity Act, 2003 provide that subject to the provisions of the Act and these

regulations and subject to such directions, orders or guidelines issued by the

Commission, every licensee is authorised to recover, from an applicant requiring

supply of electricity any expenditure that the licensee shall be required to

reasonably incur in providing any electric line or electric plant in addition to those

specified in sub regulations.

Further, where supply of electricity requires any extension of

distribution system to be carried out by the licensee, the charges for such work are

calculated in accordance with Annexure-1 of the ibid Regulations or supervision

charges calculated in accordance with Regulation 4.9 in case the applicant opts for

execution of work at his own cost.

The Licensee shall, on an annual basis, compile and publish a cost

data book which shall include all the requisite information required for the

preparation of estimate for work for extension of distribution system in order to

extend supply to the applicant and the norms for calculating the load for the

electrification of Urban Estates and Group Housing Societies.

From the above provision, it is quite evident that for supply of

Electricity, the consumer may be an individual consumer or a developer/colonizer

seeking electric connection is required to bear the expenditure as per the above

provisions of the Regulations in vogue. Thus, the Petitioner is to bear the cost of the

internal as well as external infrastructure for his colony.

The Commission, therefore, do not agree to the contention of the

Petitioner that the licence nowhere stipulate a condition of laying down of the

55

electrical infrastructure by the Petitioner including setting up of 66 KV sub-station

and that the obligation for setting up of sub-station and lying down the electrical

infrastructure is of the State authorities.

The Commission observes that if the ultimate load as per latest norms

of the colony require setting up of 33 KV or 66 KV sub-stations, that has to be set-up

by the colonizer.

The above quoted provision in the agreement entered into by the

Petitioner with the DTCP together with the Regulations clearly put an obligation on

the Petitioner to provide the internal and external (i.e. to pay share cost) electrical

infrastructure including 33 KV or 66 KV sub-stations as required for his colony

developed under the licence(s) granted by the DTCP, Haryana and hence the

Commission answer is in affirmative.

Issue No. 2

Whether the electrical layout plan and the electrical infrastructure approved for a colony of a developer/colonizer will require revision if during the course of development by the developer/agency, the norms of calculating ultimate load are revised?

As already stated the terms and conditions of the Agreement between

the Petitioner and DTCP discussed above, clearly cast an obligation on the

Petitioner to get the electrical distribution services plan, estimate approved from the

transmission/distribution licensees of his area of supply and it has further been

provided that the developer shall complete the same before obtaining completion

certificate for the colony. It is pertinent to see why this responsibility has been put on

the developer.

The Commission is of the considered opinion that the development of

the colony, plotted or otherwise, is to be carried out in a comprehensive manner by

the developer and provision of all the basic facilities/services like roads, sewerage

system, drainage system, drinking water, electricity and connectivity of the services

with the external services provided by the main agencies of the State Government is

the responsibility of the developer. The electricity is also an essential service

required for the prospective consumers/owners of the plot/houses/flats in the colony

developed by the colonizer and this cannot be kept in isolation and has to be

56

developed in a coordinated and comprehensive manner for simultaneous

development/installation of the electrical infrastructure along with the other facilities

during the course of development of infrastructure in the colony. However, as for as

adequacy of the electrical infrastructure is concerned, it has been clearly provided

that the developer will get the electrical services layout/estimate approved from the

licensee and complete the same before getting a completion certificate from the

DTCP.

The Commission feels that the electrical infrastructure so planned and

approved should be sufficient in meeting the demand of the consumers including the

future growth.

The distribution licensee being the agency to look into this aspect, has

also been mandated and under the HERC Regulations Duty to supply electricity and

Power to Recover expenditure and Power to require security Regulations, 2005

framed under the Electricity Act, 2003, which provide that the distribution licensee

shall fix norms for assessment of load requirement of the premises for estimation of

the cost of providing supply to a consumer. The relevant sub regulation 4.10.1 read

as under:-

“4.10.1 The Licensee shall, on an annual basis, compile and publish a cost data book

by 1st April of the year, which shall include all the requisite information required for the

preparation of estimate for work for Extension of distribution system in order to extend

supply to the applicant and the norms for calculating the load for the electrification of

Urban Estates and Group Housing Societies. The standard cost data book, so

published, shall be valid for a period on one year i.e. w.e.f. 1st April to 31st March of

next year.”

It is quite apparent that it is the duty of the Distribution Licensee to

compile and publish a cost data book which shall include all the requisite information

and the norms for calculating the load for the electrification of Urban Estates and the

Group Housing Societies.

The Commission agrees with the contention of the Respondent No. 1

that the load norm primarily determines the load that would expectedly come up on

the transmission and distribution system at any point of time according to which the

minimum capacity of infrastructure to be created is determined in order to ensure

57

uninterrupted and quality power to the consumer. Accordingly, the load norms have

been devised and are reviewed from time to time with increase in consumption

pattern to ensure that the builder/developer whether private or the Government,

installs adequate electrical infrastructure for the residents of the area to cater to their

electricity needs and the usage pattern.

The Commission, thus, hold that the electrical layout plan and the

electrical infrastructure approved for a colony can be revised if, during the course of

development by the developer/agency the norms for calculating ultimate load of the

colony are revised. The Commission, therefore, answers the issue no.2 in the

affirmative.

Issue No. 3.

Whether the policy for charging the cost of curing inadequacy in the electrical infrastructure provide by the developer/colonizer is applicable on Bulk Supply Single Point Distribution or it pertains to the areas/colonies where DHBVN is the distributor?

The Commission observes that the HERC Regulations (Single Point

Supply to Residential Colonies or Office-cum-Residential Complexes of Employers,

Group Housing Societies and Commercial–cum-Residential Complexes of

Developers) Regulations, 2013 framed under the Act, 2003 provide that the

developer is to provide complete infrastructure to serve electrical requirements of the

colony before he seeks Single Point Supply Connection from the Distribution

Licensee. Regulation 5.1 (a) & (b) of the ibid Regulations reads as under:-

“5.1 Colonies covered under the provisions of Regulation 3.1 and new GHSs

seeking Single Point Supply as per Regulation 4.1.

a) For a Colony falling under the purview of Regulation 3.1, a GHS seeking Single

Point Supply as per Regulation 4.1 and a GHS not falling under the purview of

Regulation 4.1 but the GHS/ Developer / RWA, at its own option, seeking new

electricity connection under Single Point Supply in line with Regulation 4.3, the

GHS/Employer/Developer/RWA shall be obliged to seek supply of electricity at a single

point at 11 KV or higher voltage under these Regulations by submitting an application

in the prescribed form with requisite charges to the Distribution Licensee giving

complete details of the load of all residential units as also of common services and

other non-domestic loads if nay. The Distribution Licensee will supply electricity at a

Single Point at 11 KV or higher voltage depending upon the feasibility. In case of

58

Developer, the distribution licensee shall ensure, before release of single point supply

connection, that the developer has completed the installation of complete electrical

infrastructure within the complex as per the approved Electrical Layout Plan.

b) The GHS/Employer/Developer/ RWA will install, operate & maintain all

infrastructure, including substations /transformers, required for distribution or electricity

within the premises of the GHS/Colony at its / his own cost.”

The Commission observes that it is evidently clear from the above

provisions of Single Point Supply Regulations that the Distribution Licensee will

supply electricity at a Single Point at 11 KV or higher voltage depending upon the

feasibility. It has been further provided that in case of a developer, the Distribution

Licensee shall ensure before the release of connection, that the developer has

completed the installation of electrical infrastructure within the complex as per the

approved electrical layout plan.

The above Regulations also provide that the Group Housing

Societies/Employer/Developer will install, operate and maintain all infrastructure,

including sub-stations/transformer required for distribution of electricity within the

premises of the colony at his own cost. The above provision in the Regulations

framed under the Electricity Act of 2003 empowers and bind the Distribution

Licensee to discharge its such function so as to ensure that the developer install the

adequate electrical infrastructure as per the load requirements determined and as

per the electrical layout plan approved by the licensee prior to the release of his

connection or the energisation of the electrical system laid in the colony.

The Commission observes that the policy framed by the Distribution

Licensee for taking care of the inadequacies in the electrical infrastructure laid by the

developer/colonizer/Government agencies in the colonies/sectors developed in the

area/land for which they have been granted the licence (s) from the Director, Town

and Country Planning, Haryana is a form of commercial arrangement and is aimed

to safe guard the larger interests of the consumers who have paid or are paying the

price for the services/facilities under the provisions of the licence (s).

The Commission is in agreement with the views expressed by the

Respondent Nigam that the developer/colonizer shy away from their responsibilities

59

for installation of adequate electrical infrastructure as per the norms on one pretext

or other and try to seek the completion of their colonies from DTCP without

discharging their responsibilities of creating/installing the electrical infrastructure

completely as per load requirement of these colonies.

Further, the Commission considers that the policy/decision circulated

vide Sales Circular No. D-15/2010 dated 14.12.2010 by the Respondent Nigam for

sharing the cost of inadequacy of electrical infrastructure in the developers colonies

in 75:25 is equally applicable on the colonies/area developed by the colonizer which

are being served through bulk Single Point Supply Connection or otherwise when

read with Single Point Supply Regulations, 2013 quoted above.

The Commission thus observes that the contention of the Petitioner,

that the policy, framed and circulated by the Respondent Nigam (DHBVN) is not

applicable on his bulk supply Single Point Connection and the same pertains to the

areas/colonies where DHBVN is the distributer, is wrong and not maintainable.

The Commission is of the considered view that the developer is

required to install the electrical infrastructure determined as per electrical layout plan

approved by the Distribution Licensee in accordance with the applicable load norms

during the course of development of the colony/Group Housing

Societies/residential/non-residential areas as per terms and conditions of the

licence(s) granted by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana and

Agreement entered there under as well as the provision of the Single Point Supply

Regulations, 2013. The issue framed at Sr. No. 3 is accordingly answered in the

affirmative.

Issue No. 4

Whether the Petitioner has installed the electrical infrastructure required for Sushant Lok-II (Ext.)?

The Commission observes from the calculations of ultimate load

requirements for the Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) colony of the Petitioner duly reconciled by

both the Petitioner and the Respondents which have been placed on record, the

60

load worked out as per latest load norms for the residential and commercial area is

11175.68 KVA for Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) against the load of 4080 KVA initially

assessed at the time of sanction of electrical layout plan in 1998.l

However, the parties are not in consensus while assessing the load

requirements for the areas earmarked for the utilities and other services like Schools

(Nursery and High School), Dispensaries, Sub Post Offices, Fire Stations, Petrol

Pumps etc. and are having difference of opinion. The Petitioner pleaded for

considering these loads at par with domestic category. However, on the contrary, the

Respondent argued to consider these load at par with commercial category of the

consumers and accordingly assesed the load requirement to the tune of 12990 KVA

against the assessment of 1649 KVA by the Petitioner for Sushant Lok – II (Ext.).

The Commission feels that though, the licensee has not set any norms

for utilities/common areas for which substantial chunk of land has been

reserved/earmarked in the layout plan of their colonies, the consideration of norm at

par with commercial category for calculating the load, may not be justified in view of

the fact that area earmarked for these utilities/services is quite large and not

comparable with the plot sizes in the commercial category of the consumers. Also

the pattern of usage in these categories is also different. In view of above, the

Commission agrees with the contention of the Petitioner that the norms for

calculating the load of these utility services be considered as 4 KW per 100 Sq.

meter with diversity factor of 0.4 as applicable for domestic category. However, the

Distribution Licensee may determine the norms for calculating load of these utility

services and the same as and when determined be made applicable for utility

services.

The Commission observes that the ultimate load of the Sushant Lok-II

(Ext.) would work out to 13151.00 KVA. The capacity of internal electrical

infrastructure provided in Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) as admitted by the Petitioner in his

Petition is 3900 KVA. Thus, the capacity of the internal electrical infrastructure

created by the Petitioner is grossly inadequate to meet the ultimate load requirement

of the Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) colony. Further, it is seen that the existing capacity of the

61

electrical infrastructure is capable of catering a maximum load of about 3120 KVA

taking 80% as the loading factor for the transformers. As such the existing electrical

infrastructure may take additional load of 540 KVA over and above the already

sanctioned demand of 2611 KVA subject to verification by the Distribution Licensee.

Hence, the answer to the question at Sr. No. 4 is in negative.

Issue No. 5

Whether the Respondent can ask for the share cost/Bank Guarantee for the inadequacy in electrical infrastructure in respect of colony being developed by the Petitioner?

The Petitioner in his submission before the Commission has submitted

that the plea taken by Respondent No.1 that the Petitioner would be required to

furnish the Bank Guarantees and/or share the cost in the ratio of 75:25 between it

and DHBVN is illegal and erroneous, that even reference made to certain policies

and/or guidelines, unilaterally at their own end, in that regard, is misconceived,

misplaced besides being illegal and without jurisdiction. It has been further submitted

by the Petitioner that the said guidelines/policies cannot be made applicable keeping

in view the nature of relief being sought for by the Petitioner, more so when the

release of load is being sought only to the extent the same has been certified and for

which requisite infrastructure has been laid.

On the other hand, the Respondent No. 1 submitted that as per

Section 43 of the Electricity Act, a Distribution Licensee is obliged to supply

electricity on request. However, Section 45 provides for recovery of charges i.e.

energy tariff and Section 46 provides for the recovery of reasonable expenditure

incurred in the supply of electricity to a person requiring supply of electricity, if such

supply would require extension of distribution network, commissioning of new sub-

station, electrical line or electrical plant etc.

The Commission observes that the above submission of the

Respondent No. 1 is in-line with the provision with the Electricity Act, 2003 and the

Regulations framed by the Commission there under. Further, HERC (Duty to supply

Electricity on request and Power to recover expenditure incurred in providing supply

62

and Power to require security) Regulations, 2005 empower the Distribution Licensee

to recover the share cost of any augmentation/creation of the feeding capacity for

supply of power in line with the Regulations 4.5.2, 4.5.4 and 4.10.4 of bid

Regulations. Thus, there is no illegality on the part of the Distribution Licensee to ask

for the share cost for the inadequacy in electrical infrastructure in respect of the

colony being developed by the Petitioner.

The Respondent No. 1 has submitted that at the time of entry of private

builders/developers in the Real Estate, as a competitor to the Government owned

HUDA, there was a sense of mutual trust and faith between the licensee and the

Real Estate. It was expected that these builders and developers would show enough

maturity and not to shy away from their responsibility of erecting an adequate

electrical infrastructure for its residents. But when the developers, in most of the

cases, did not prefer to fulfill their obligations under the law and started subjecting

their residents to suffer, the licensee had to think of some means and ways by which

the builders/developers could be asked to fulfill their obligations before leaving it

entirely to the fate of poor residents. One of such ways DHBVN could deliberate

upon was to ask the builders/developers to furnish a Bank Guarantee as a measure

of security from the builder so that in case the builder/ developer do not come

forward to create the infrastructure, DHBVN can get it done at the cost of builder by

invoking the Bank Guarantee. The Respondent No. 1 has also submitted that

DHBVN has never refused the extension of load to any builder/developer but at the

same time the minimum security in the shape of Bank Guarantee has been asked

for to secure the interests of their residents/plot holders etc. Partial loads have also

been allowed wherever the builders/developers have deposited such Bank

Guarantees.

The Commission observes from the copies of applications made by the

Petitioner to the DTCP for renewal of various licence(s) granted for development of

the colonies, that the development works are complete and it has applied for

completion certificate. Further, as per the details of the current occupancy indicated

by the Petitioner, the present occupancy is 60% to 62% for Sushant Lok-II (Ext.).

63

The Commission observes that on the one hand the Petitioner has

applied for completion certificate and all development works are being claimed to be

complete, whereas on the other hand, it has provided only about 30% of the internal

electrical infrastructure and is yet to take action for installation of external electrical

works like grid sub-station. Thus, the Commission is inclined to accept the need for

the Respondent No. 1 to ask the Petitioners to furnish a Bank Guarantee as a

measure of security so that in case the Petitioner do not come forward to create the

electrical infrastructure, it would get it done at the cost of Petitioner by invoking the

Bank Guarantee.

The Commission further observes that the Petitioner had deposited the

share cost for the load of 4080 KVA and the same has been admitted by the

Respondent No. 1. However the Petitioner shall deposit the share cost/Bank

Guarantee for the enhancement of load corresponding to the ultimate load

requirement less the load for which share cost has already been deposited by the

Petitioner before the release of additional load.

3. The Commission observes that detail of the Petition No. 23 of 2013

relating to Sushant Lok-III and the prayer made are similar to the Petition No. 21 of

2013 relating to Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) examined in detail as above. Therefore, the

findings of the Commission in Petition No. 21 of 2013 relating to Sushant Lok-II

(Ext.) are also applicable to that of the Petition No. 23 of 2013 relating to Sushant

Lok-III.

4. Thus, the Commission in view of above findings directs as under:-

i) Respondent Nigam shall allow the extension of load and the contract

demand in accordance with the capacity of the internal electrical infrastructure in

case of both Sushant Lok-II (Ext.) and Sushant Lok-III developed by the

Petitioner within 30 days of the application made by the Petitioner and

completion of the requisite formalities as per the instructions of the Nigam.

However, the Respondent shall ensure an adequate safeguard/security in any

manner as deemed fit to ensure that Petitioner shall install the requisite electrical

64

infrastructure internal as well as external, within six months as per ultimate load

requirement in accordance with the provisions of the terms and conditions of the

licence(s) granted to the Petitioner by the DTCP, Haryana, Agreement signed

between the Petitioner and the DTCP and the statutory obligation under the

Regulations in vogue.

ii) In case of feeding capacity constraints, the Respondent Nigam shall

release the load, for which the feeding capacity is available, in the time frame

stipulated above and the balance load shall be released within three months time

by augmenting the feeding capacity.

iii) The Petitioner shall submit the revised electrical layout plan of these

colonies to the Respondent No. 1 for approval within 30 days of receipt of the

Order. The Respondent Nigam shall approve the same within 15 days of the

receipt of the proposal from the Petitioner as per this order.

iv) On completion of the electrical infrastructure by the Petitioner as per

the approved electrical layout plan, the Respondent Nigam shall issue the

requisite NOC within 15 days as well as return the security to the Petitioner.

Both the Petitions are accordingly disposed of.

This order is signed, dated and issued by Haryana Electricity

Regulatory Commission on 20.02.2015.

Date: 20.02.2015 (M.S Puri) (Jagjeet Singh) Place Panchkula Member Chairman

65