HERC Rejects Review Petition, Holds Section 142 Proceedings Cannot Reopen Concluded Issues and Enforcement Proceedings Must Remain Within the Four Corners of the CGRF Order
Case No. HERC/RA 07 of 2026 | Judgment dated 15 October 2026
The Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘HERC’), vide order dated 15.10.2026in Shri Ram Filament v. SDO, DHBVN & Anr., Case No. HERC/RA 07 of 2026, rejected the review petition challenging its order dated 16.01.2026 in Petition No. 71 of 2024.
HERC held that review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-agitate issues already considered and decided, and that proceedings under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be used to enlarge the relief granted by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (“CGRF”). The Commission further held that interest could not be claimed on an ACD amount which had not actually been deposited with the distribution licensee.
Dispute
Shri Ram Filament, an industrial consumer of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (‘DHBVN’), had approached the CGRF alleging, inter alia, issues concerning adjustment of its Advance Consumption Deposit (‘ACD’) and payment of interest.
By order dated 22.03.2024, the CGRF directed DHBVN to adjust ₹4,71,899/- towards ACD along with interest at 18% from January 2019 till realization, with the order further clarifying that the 18% rate applied for the period during which payment of interest was delayed.
In view of the delay in adjustment of ACD and interest amount by DHBVN, Shri Ram Filament instituted Petition No. 71 of 2024 under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003(‘Act’), alleging non-compliance with the directions of the CGRF. Pursuant to the directions issued by HERC in the said proceedings, DHBVN subsequently refunded ₹7,10,151/-, comprising the ACD principal, statutory interest and penal interest for the delay. By order dated 16.01.2026, HERC recorded that the directions contained in the CGRF order had been complied with and that nothing further remained for adjudication.
The Review Applicant thereafter sought review, principally contending that further interest was payable on an alleged enhanced ACD of ₹40,97,195/-, subsequently stated to be ₹45,47,805/-, and that the computation of interest on the original ACD had also been incorrectly made.
Review Cannot Operate as an Appeal
HERC reiterated that the jurisdiction under Section 94(1)(f) of the Act is limited to recognised grounds of review, including an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence despite due diligence, or other sufficient reason.
The Review Applicant had not identified any such error or new evidence. Its challenge essentially sought reconsideration of the calculations and findings already examined by the Commission.
Section 142 Proceedings Cannot Enlarge the CGRF Order
HERC held that the CGRF order dated 22.03.2024 specifically directed adjustment of ₹4,71,899/- with interest. It did not direct payment of interest on the separate enhanced ACD amount. HERC therefore rejected the attempt to expand the scope of the CGRF order through compliance proceedings.
HERC relied upon the principle that proceedings under Section 142 are confined to examining compliance with the order whose enforcement is sought. They cannot be converted into proceedings for modification, enlargement or fresh adjudication of the substantive relief granted in that order.
No Interest on ACD Not Actually Deposited
HERC also rejected the claim for interest on the alleged ACD of ₹40,97,195/-. HERCfound that the amount had not been deposited with DHBVN during the relevant period and therefore could not be treated as an ACD/security deposit carrying interest for that period.
Compliance with the CGRF Order Had Already Been Recorded
HERC relied upon its order dated 16.01.2026, in which it had already recorded that DHBVN had complied with the CGRF directions by adjusting the ACD along with applicable interest.
The position was also subsequently recorded in proceedings before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 3855 of 2026, where the Review Applicant acknowledged compliance with the CGRF order. HERC therefore found no basis to reopen the issue through review proceedings.
Regulatory Significance
The order reinforces two important procedural limits under the Act. First, review jurisdiction is not an avenue for a second adjudication. A party cannot seek reconsideration of an issue merely because it disputes HERC’s appreciation of calculations or interpretation of material already considered.
Second, enforcement under Section 142 is confined to the order sought to be enforced. The enforcement forum cannot enlarge the substantive relief granted by the original adjudicating authority or read additional monetary entitlements into an order which does not contain them.
Read More