Panchkula: The Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC) has passed an important order in a matter concerning the applicability of reference meter provisions for plotted residential colonies developed by Model Economic Township Limited (METL). The order was passed in HERC Petition No. 17 of 2026, wherein the Commission examined the issue of whether reference meter requirements applicable to group housing societies and gated colonies could be mechanically applied to large plotted townships.
The petition was filed by Model Economic Township Limited under Section 43 and Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with relevant provisions of the HERC Regulations relating to duty to supply electricity and single point supply arrangements. The petitioner sought relaxation, clarification and removal of difficulties arising due to implementation of reference meter provisions in its plotted residential development.
The case relates to the Model Economic Township project, a large integrated township being developed in District Jhajjar, Haryana. The petitioner submitted that the township is spread over approximately 2,059 acres and has developed substantial electrical infrastructure including transmission lines, a 220/33 kV substation and various 33/11 kV substations, which were subsequently handed over to UHBVN for operation and maintenance.
Dispute Regarding Installation of Reference Meter
The main issue before the Commission was whether the requirement of installation of a reference meter under HERC Regulations, 2016 and HERC Regulations, 2020 would apply to METL’s plotted colony.
Under the existing regulatory framework, where individual electricity connections are provided to residents of group housing societies or similar developments, a reference meter is installed at the incoming supply point. The energy recorded through the reference meter is compared with the combined consumption recorded through individual consumer meters. Any difference beyond the permissible limit may attract additional liability.
METL argued that its township is fundamentally different from a conventional gated colony or group housing society. According to the petitioner, the township does not have restricted entry and exit points and is not enclosed by boundary walls. The internal roads are accessible, and the development is more similar to individual residential plots rather than a controlled residential complex.
The petitioner further submitted that the objective behind reference meter provisions was primarily to address situations where distribution licensees do not have free access to internal electrical infrastructure of gated societies. Since the electrical infrastructure of METL had already been developed and handed over to UHBVN, the petitioner contended that the same rationale could not be applied in its case.
METL’s Argument on Energy Difference Liability
Another important contention raised by METL was regarding liability for energy differences beyond the permissible limit. The petitioner argued that a mere difference between reference meter consumption and individual meter readings cannot automatically be treated as unauthorised use of electricity.
It was submitted that under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, unauthorised use requires certain specific circumstances such as artificial means, meter tampering, unauthorised purpose of usage or supply to unauthorised premises. According to METL, technical variations or distribution losses cannot be equated with unauthorised consumption.
The petitioner also highlighted that the township has underground electrical infrastructure, reducing the possibility of distribution losses. It suggested installation of smart prepaid meters as an alternative mechanism and offered cooperation to UHBVN for implementation of prepaid metering within the township.
UHBVN Opposes Relaxation
UHBVN opposed the petition and submitted that the relief sought by METL was contrary to the mandatory provisions of the HERC Regulations. The distribution company argued that the reference meter requirement applies where developers opt for individual electricity connections for residents.
According to UHBVN, the petitioner had itself opted for the arrangement under which individual connections were released to residents, and therefore the obligation relating to reference meters automatically followed. UHBVN argued that after choosing the regulatory framework, METL could not later seek exemption from the same provisions.
The respondent further submitted that the regulations do not create any exception for colonies claimed to be open or without boundary walls. It was argued that the nature of development, planned roads, demarcated plots and residential arrangements were sufficient to bring the township within the scope of applicable regulations.
Issue of Power to Remove Difficulty
UHBVN also argued that the Commission’s power to remove difficulties is limited and cannot be used to modify or dilute existing regulations. Reliance was placed upon judicial principles that such powers are meant only to remove difficulties in implementation and not to provide exemption from regulatory obligations.
The respondent referred to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.U. Sinai vs Union of India, wherein it was held that the power to remove difficulty cannot be exercised to change the basic scheme or essential provisions of law.
HERC Examines Regulatory Intent
The Commission examined the competing submissions of both parties and considered the purpose behind the reference meter mechanism introduced under HERC Regulations.
The regulatory framework was originally designed to deal with situations involving gated societies, residential complexes and colonies where distribution licensees may face difficulty in accessing internal premises for meter reading, billing and controlling commercial losses.
The proceedings also noted that HERC Regulations, 2020 were framed for supply arrangements relating to employers’ colonies, group housing societies and residential or commercial complexes having restricted access or controlled premises.
Impact of the Order
The order is significant for large plotted township developments in Haryana as it examines whether regulations framed for gated communities can be directly applied to different categories of developments without considering their actual nature and infrastructure arrangements.
The decision highlights the importance of interpreting electricity regulations in accordance with their underlying objective rather than applying provisions mechanically. Large integrated townships having independent infrastructure arrangements may require separate consideration depending upon their factual circumstances.
Importance for Developers and Distribution Companies
The matter has wider implications for developers, distribution licensees and electricity consumers. While distribution companies require mechanisms to control losses and ensure accurate energy accounting, developers have raised concerns regarding additional financial liabilities arising from energy differences beyond permissible limits.
The order may provide guidance for future disputes involving reference meters, multi-point supply arrangements and applicability of HERC Regulations to different types of residential developments.
The decision also reflects the balancing role of the Electricity Regulatory Commission in protecting consumer interests while ensuring effective regulation of electricity distribution systems.