Page 1 of 12

IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2021

Dated:

25.11.2022

Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gauba, Officiating Chairperson

Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member

In the matter of:

MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED

(Formerly known as Merino Panel Products Ltd.)

44 KM Stone, Delhi-Rohtak Road, Village Rohad,

Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana- 124501

… Appellant

VERSUS

1. HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY

COMMISSION,

Through its Secretary,

Bays 33-36, Sector 4, Panchkula – 134112

2. UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM

LIMITED,

Vidyut Sadan, Sector-6, Panchkula -134109

3. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM

LIMITED,

Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar – 125005

… Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant (s)

:

Ms. Swapna Seshadri

Mr. Amal Nair

Ms. Kritika Khanna

Counsel for the Respondent (s)

:

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra

Mr. Osheer Verma for R-1

Mr. Samir Malik

Ms. Nikita Choukse for R-2 & R-3

Page 2 of 12

J U D G M E N T (Oral)

PER HON’BLE MR. SANDESH KUMAR SHARMA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant – Merino Panel

Products Limitedchallenging the order dated 01/06/2020 (“Impugned Order”)

passed by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred

as the “State Commission”) in Case Nos. HERC/PRO-59 of 2019 and

HERC/PRO-60 of 2019, whereby the State Commission has approved the

Annual Revenue Requirements (“ARR”) of the distribution licensees in the

State of Haryana for FY 2020-21 and also determined the Retail Supply Tariff

payable by the consumers in the State, inter-alia determined the distribution

losses in the State, which are applicable on the open access consumers, such

as the Appellant herein.

Description of the parties:

2. The Appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the

Companies Act, 2013 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of

versatile interior solutions, located in the licenced area of Respondent No. 2.

3. The Respondent No. 1, Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission is the

State Electricity Regulatory Commission for the State of Haryana, exercising

powers and discharging functions under the provisions of the Electricity Act,

2003.

Page 3 of 12

4. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the distribution licensees, engaged in

the retail supply and distribution of electricity in their respective areas of licence

in the State of Haryana.

5. The Appellant submitted that this Tribunal has rendered various

judgments, consistently directing the State Commissions to determine the

voltage wise wheeling charges and the voltage wise distribution losses inter-

alia emphasizing that the cost of supply ought to be determined on voltage-

level basis, however, the State Commission through the Impugned Order has

applied the distribution losses by aggregating the HT and LT level losses even

after determining the distribution losses separately contrary to the orders of the

Hon’ble Tribunal and to its own earlier orders, wherein the distribution losses

were segregated to the objective of the Electricity Act.

6. Further added that while the losses were divided between HT and LT

levels in the previous tariff orders, the State Commission ought to have further

segregated them between the loss levels in a further scientific manner by

categorizing it between various voltage-levels, the State Commission has acted

in a regressive manner in pooling the voltage-level which were previously

segregated.

7. This Tribunal has consistently held that cost of supply must be computed

on a voltage-wise basis, in the recent judgment dated 18.08.2020 rendered in

Appeal No. 104 of 2020 titled M/s. Malana Power Company Limited v. Himachal

Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited has inter-alia, held as under:

Page 4 of 12

8. Further, in the judgment rendered on 18.02.2022 in Appeal No. 248 of

2018 (titled Director,