Appellate Tribunal for Electricity

Faridabad Industries Association vs Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors on 6 October 2025

COURT-2

IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

APL No. 82 OF 2017 & IA No. 1372 OF 2025

Dated: 6th October, 2025

Present : Hon`ble Ms. Seema Gupta, Technical Member (Electricity)

Hon`ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member In the matter of:

Faridabad Industries Association

.... Appellant(s)

Versus

Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

.... Respondent(s)

Counsel on record for the Appellant(s)

: Vishal Sharma

for App. 1

Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Justine George for Res. 1

Samir Malik

Nikita Choukse

Tushar Mathur

Himani Yadav

for Res. 2

Samir Malik

Nikita Choukse

Tushar Mathur

Himani Yadav

for Res. 3

ORDER

IA NO.1372 OF 2025 (For Clarification) (R-2)

By way of this application, the applicant/2nd respondent is seeking clarification in respect of the judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.82/2017.

Page 1 of 3

Heard the learned counsels.

It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that during oral arguments, the appellant had restricted its case only to the determination of voltage-wise and consumer-category-wise cross-subsidy surcharge. However, in the operative portion of the judgment the words “and additional surcharge” have been added after the words “cross-subsidy surcharge” which appear to be superfluous as no prayer with regards to additional surcharge was made by the appellant during the course of oral submissions as well as in the written submissions.

In view of these submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and considering the entire case set up by the appellant during the course of the arguments before this Tribunal, we find that the words “and additional surcharge” have been added in the operative portion of the judgment only due to an inadvertent typographical mistake, which needs to be clarified/rectified.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. The operative portion of the judgment dated 12.08.2025 shall now read as under: - “ORDER For the foregoing reasons as stated above, we are of the considered view that the Appeal No.82 of 2017 has merit and is allowed on the aforesaid terms.

The Impugned Order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission is hereby set aside to the extent

Page 2 of 3

indicated above. The matter is remanded back to the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission with a direction to undertake a fresh adjudication after obtaining and analyzing complete, category-wise and voltage-wise data on cost of supply and AT&C losses from the distribution licensees and to pass a speaking order with proper rationale and justification for fixing the cross-subsidy surcharge, that reflects a fair, transparent and data-driven approach, expeditiously but in no way later than 2 years from the date of this judgment.

The Captioned Appeal and pending IAs, if any, are disposed of in the above terms.”

This order shall be appended to the judgment dated 12.08.2025.

Virender Bhat Judicial Member

Seema Gupta Technical Member (Electricity) Tp/js

Page 3 of 3

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead