LawDaily.org | Energy Law | 28 October 2026 | HERC/Petition No. 30 of 2026
Panchkula: In a major development for India's power-distribution reform, the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC) has decided not to proceed further with the 25-year parallel distribution licence it granted to Eleven Power Private Limited (EPPL) for the Gurugram and Nuh revenue districts. The decision, issued on 28 October 2026, comes only nine days after the licence was granted and follows a written direction from the Haryana Government under Section 108(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Commission also refused EPPL's request for advance intimation and a hearing.
The Order in Brief
The order, passed by Officiating Chairman Mukesh Garg and Member Shiv Kumar, records the following:
- 19 October 2026: HERC allowed a parallel distribution licence to EPPL for 25 years for Gurugram and Nuh. EPPL was told to convey its acceptance within a week, after which a Form-6 public notice was to be published in an English and a Hindi daily.
- 21 October 2026: EPPL accepted the licence and its terms and conditions.
- 23 October 2026: EPPL told the Commission it was taking steps to implement the licence, and asked for advance notice and a hearing in any proceedings or representations concerning the licence.
- 26 October 2026: HERC received a communication from the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana (Memo No. 2/21/2023-1E) conveying directions under Section 108(1), annexed to the order as Annexure A.
- 28 October 2026: HERC rejected EPPL's prayer for a hearing and decided not to proceed further in the matter for as long as the directions remain operative.
What the Government Directed
The Energy Department's letter, which says it was issued with the approval of the Chief Minister, directs the Commission not to create, operationalise or effectuate a parallel distribution licence anywhere in the State of Haryana. It gives these reasons:
- The grant of a parallel licence is, in the government's view, a complete departure from the present policy.
- The government is gravely concerned about its effect on consumers and the public interest, including the financial implications for State revenue.
- It had received information about agitation and apprehension among the public, consumers, farmers and employees of the State utilities.
The letter also recalls the objections raised against the grant, including non-compliance with requirements on minimum area of supply, capital adequacy, creditworthiness, technical capability and universal service obligations, along with concerns about cherry-picking of high-revenue consumers, cross-subsidy, power purchase commitments, stranded costs and duplication of infrastructure. Importantly, it states that the government is presently not going into the correctness of the findings in the 19 October order.
HERC's Reasoning: Why No Hearing
Rejecting EPPL's request, the Commission relied on the text of Section 108. Sub-section (1) provides that the State Commission shall be guided by written directions of the State Government on matters of policy involving public interest. Sub-section (2) makes the State Government's decision on whether a question involves such a policy matter final.
The Commission held that the directions were issued in writing, apply generally across Haryana, leave no adjudicatory exercise for the Commission, and that no lis is pending in which EPPL's rights are to be determined afresh. It therefore found no occasion for a hearing.
The Licence That Was Granted
According to reports at the time of the 19 October order, EPPL, part of the Eleven Group chaired by Sunil Sachdeva, planned the following:
- A capital investment of about ₹4,717 crore between FY 2026-27 and FY 2030-31.
- A phased network across five divisions: Gurugram Sub-urban, Gurugram City, Manesar, Sohna and Nuh, with Nuh in the first phase.
- Supply to consumers from FY 2027-28, giving over 8.3 lakh consumers a choice between two distribution licensees.
- Underground cabling in Gurugram district and a mix of underground and overhead lines in Nuh, with a SCADA-enabled network and N-1 redundancy.
The licence was reported as the first parallel distribution licence in Haryana and one of very few in the country, a framework already used in Mumbai.
How the Dispute Unfolded
The licence triggered rapid opposition. Employee unions saw it as a step towards privatisation and as a threat to the state-owned Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN). Reports say effigies were burnt and copies of the HERC order and draft licence were burnt at more than 300 power sub-divisions on 21 October.
A three-day statewide strike began on 22 October. Reports put the number of striking employees at around 40,000, and Gurugram saw widespread outages, with thousands of complaints registered in a single night and the disruption spreading to other districts.
Energy Minister Anil Vij initially called the strike unwarranted and said the government opposed the licence and would approach the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). Reports differ on whether that appeal had actually been filed. After talks with Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini on 23 October, the government agreed to the unions' central demand of invoking Section 108, and the strike was called off that evening. The directions then reached HERC on 26 October.
A note on accuracy: some news reports at the time described the move as a direction to "revoke" or "nullify" the licence order. The text of the direction as annexed to the HERC order is narrower. It bars the creation, operationalisation or effectuation of a parallel licence and expressly does not examine the correctness of the 19 October findings. HERC's own order likewise stops at deciding not to proceed further while the directions remain operative.
Wider Context
Business Standard notes the decision comes while the Centre and states are experimenting with parallel licensing amid slow progress on discom privatisation. Applications have been reported from Tata Power, Adani Electricity and Torrent Power in other states, and Andhra Pradesh has given Google a deemed distribution licence for a data-centre hub near Visakhapatnam. Haryana's stand therefore stands out as a counter-signal on competition in distribution.
Legal Questions to Watch
- Status of the licence: The order does not say the 19 October licence has been set aside. It is paused "for so long as the directions remain operative", which leaves the licence's legal status uncertain, especially since EPPL had already accepted it.
- Scope of Section 108: The provision binds the Commission only on "matters of policy involving public interest", and sub-section (2) makes the government's view on that question final. How far this can reach a licence already granted after a quasi-judicial process is likely to be tested.
- Natural justice: HERC's refusal of a hearing rests on the absence of any adjudicatory step. EPPL may argue that its accrued rights are affected.
- Remedies: EPPL's options may include an appeal before APTEL or a writ petition. No such step had been reported at the time of writing, and the company has not been reported to have publicly responded to the 28 October order.
- The government's own challenge: Reports of a government appeal or review petition against the 19 October order may now be overtaken by the Section 108 route, and their status should be confirmed.
What Next
EPPL's next move is the key point to watch, along with any challenge to the Section 108 directions and whether the government later issues a formal policy on parallel licensing. For now, consumers in Gurugram and Nuh remain served only by DHBVN.