The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Land Acquisition Collector cannot adjudicate disputes relating to entitlement or apportionment of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). The Court ruled that where a bona fide dispute exists, the Collector is statutorily bound to refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 76 of the Act. A Division Bench comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Vikas Suri passed the judgment in Gurdeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others (CWP-11737-2026). Background of the Case The dispute arose from agreements to sell executed in 2005 and 2006 between late Attar Singh and the petitioners concerning agricultural land situated in Punjab. Although a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioners, subsequent litigation led to its cancellation by the High Court in contempt proceedings in 2008. However, while directing...
In a significant order that could influence future renewable energy procurement in Haryana, the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC) has declined to grant approval to Haryana Power Purchase Centre's (HPPC) proposal for procurement of 495 MW solar power from seven solar developers through tariff-based competitive bidding.
The petition was filed by HPPC under Sections 63 and 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 seeking source approval, approval of Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), and adoption of tariffs discovered through a competitive bidding process for procurement of solar power from projects proposed to be established within Haryana. The discovered tariff ranged between Rs. 2.86/kWh and Rs. 2.97/kWh.
Background of the Tender
HPPC had floated Request for Selection (RfS) No. 123/HPPC/Solar/LTP-III/500MW/T-2 dated 11 September 2025 for procurement of 500 MW solar power through competitive bidding. Following the bidding process, seven solar power developers emerged as successful bidders for an aggregate capacity of 495 MW at tariffs ranging from Rs. 2.86 per unit to Rs. 2.97 per unit.
According to HPPC, the procurement was necessary to meet Haryana's Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO) requirements and was conducted strictly in accordance with the Ministry of Power's bidding guidelines. HPPC argued that the Commission was obligated to adopt the tariff under Section 63 of the Electricity Act because the tariff had been discovered through a transparent competitive bidding process.
HPPC's Justification
During the proceedings, HPPC contended that the discovered tariff remained competitive and economically prudent when compared with prevailing market conditions.
The utility highlighted that:
- Solar power procured within Haryana would avoid interstate transmission losses and charges.
- Solar projects established in Haryana would generate employment and economic activity within the State.
- Procurement from outside Haryana could attract significant ISTS transmission charges and losses.
- Recent Firm and Dispatchable Renewable Energy (FDRE) bids across the country had discovered substantially higher tariffs.
HERC Directs Renegotiation
During the hearing process, the Commission was not immediately convinced that the discovered tariff reflected prevailing market realities.
Accordingly, HERC directed HPPC to renegotiate with the successful bidders and attempt to secure lower tariffs. Following negotiations held under the Chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary (Energy), Government of Haryana, four developers agreed to reduce their tariffs to Rs. 2.86 per unit, while three developers declined to revise their tariff offers.
The revised tariff table submitted before the Commission showed that only part of the capacity had agreed to tariff reductions, while certain bidders maintained their original quoted tariffs.
Commission's Concerns
The Commission examined the revised proposal against current market conditions and the rapidly declining cost trends in the solar sector.
HERC observed that tariff adoption under Section 63 cannot become a mere formality and that the Commission retains a statutory responsibility to ensure that power procurement remains economical and in the interest of electricity consumers.
The Commission was of the view that the discovered tariffs did not adequately reflect prevailing market realities despite the renegotiation exercise undertaken by HPPC. Consequently, the proposal failed to satisfy the Commission regarding consumer interest and tariff prudence.
Petition Rejected
After considering the submissions, HERC declined to grant source approval and tariff adoption for the proposed procurement. The rejection means that HPPC cannot proceed with execution of the proposed PPAs on the basis of the discovered tariffs under the present bidding process.
The order is likely to have important implications for future renewable energy tenders in Haryana, particularly in situations where regulators believe that discovered tariffs do not sufficiently reflect prevailing market conditions.
Significance of the Order
The decision highlights that even where tariffs are discovered through competitive bidding, regulatory scrutiny remains an important safeguard to protect consumer interests.
The order also signals that State Commissions may increasingly examine renewable energy procurement proposals against contemporary market benchmarks rather than mechanically approving bid-discovered tariffs.
For developers, the ruling serves as a reminder that successful participation in a bidding process does not automatically guarantee tariff adoption by the regulator.
As renewable energy prices continue to evolve rapidly, the order may influence future bidding strategies, tariff expectations, and procurement frameworks in Haryana's power sector.
Case: HERC Petition No. 11 of 2026
Petitioner: Haryana Power Purchase Centre (HPPC)
Order Date: 05 June 2026
Forum: Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission, Panchkula
Comments
Post a Comment