On 3 November 2026, the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC) issued its final order in Petition No. 97 of 2025, resolving a long-running dispute between BPTP Limited and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN) over the electricity distribution system at Park 81 in Sector 81, Faridabad. The Commission allowed the developer to retain and commission the existing 33/11/0.4 kV infrastructure rather than dismantle it in favour of a 33/0.4 kV arrangement. It simultaneously directed DHBVN to release pending and new individual electricity connections, subject to technical, safety and administrative requirements, and imposed timelines and conditions on both parties.
The decision addresses a practical problem that had left residents without individual connections while the developer and the distribution utility argued over voltage configurations, approvals and responsibility. HERC emphasised that the outcome was confined to the specific facts of Park 81 and should not be treated as a general precedent or relaxation of regulations for other projects.
The Core Technical Dispute
At the heart of the case lay a distinction between the voltage at which electricity is received from the utility and the voltage used for internal distribution within a residential development. Park 81 receives supply at 33 kV. Under the existing arrangement, a 33/11 kV substation steps the voltage down, after which an internal 11 kV network and 11/0.4 kV transformers deliver power to residents at 400/230 V.
DHBVN’s revised project-specific electrification plan, approved in November 2020, contemplated a 33/0.4 kV system for multipoint connections. The utility maintained that the earlier 11 kV downstream network was only an interim arrangement and that BPTP was obliged to create the prescribed 33 kV infrastructure at its own cost. BPTP contended that the existing network had been developed pursuant to earlier departmental approvals, that replacing it would waste resources already invested, and that residents were being denied connections as a result of the disagreement.
HERC accepted that the existing infrastructure had not been created unilaterally by the developer. Field officers of DHBVN had accorded approvals, and the utility had sanctioned a deposit estimate of approximately ₹12.31 crore (Deposit Estimate No. D-82/2024-25) relating to the 33/11/0.4 kV works. A May 2022 clarification from DHBVN’s Chief Engineer (Commercial) had also recognised that, in older cases where 11 kV infrastructure had already been created under prior approvals, a 33/11/0.4 kV configuration could be permitted subject to compliance with the Single Point Supply Regulations, 2020.
Chronology of Approvals and Conflict
The dispute’s roots stretch back more than a decade. In October 2011, DHBVN approved a comprehensive electrification scheme covering Sectors 80–89 in Faridabad. That scheme envisaged a 33/11/0.4 kV arrangement for the relevant plotted developments, including requirements for 33/11 kV GIS substations and 11/0.4 kV transformers. Electricity was initially supplied through an independent 11 kV feeder from the 66/11 kV Ford substation, and the developer installed the downstream transformers.
Regulatory and procedural changes followed. A 2014 amendment to the Electricity Supply Code prescribed 33 kV supply for contracted loads above 2,000 kVA. In 2015, DHBVN shifted toward project-wise load assessment. On 24 November 2020 it approved a revised electrification plan for Park 81 specifying an ultimate load of 13.81 MVA at 33 kV and multipoint connections under a 33/0.4 kV configuration. Subsequent communications, including a re-sanction of load particulars in February 2024 and a safety clearance from the Chief Electrical Inspector in October 2024, formed part of the record before the Commission.
BPTP filed Petition No. 97 of 2025 seeking acceptance of the existing 11/0.4 kV network, commissioning of the constructed 33/11 kV substation, release of pending connections, and relaxation of difficulties arising from regulatory amendments. An interim order in April 2026 already directed the release of connections subject to formalities. The final hearing took place on 25 August 2026; the 55-page order was issued on 3 November 2026 by a bench comprising Chairman Mukesh Garg and Member Shiv Kumar.
Positions of the Parties
BPTP argued that the infrastructure rested on departmental approvals rather than unilateral action; that DHBVN’s own 2022 clarification supported retention in older cases; that hundreds of connections had already been released over the existing network at different stages; that full replacement would cause unnecessary expenditure and delay; and that residents were suffering from the prolonged disagreement.
DHBVN relied on the November 2020 plan as the governing project-specific document, characterised the 11 kV arrangement as interim only, questioned selective reliance on the 2011 scheme, and maintained that later correspondence and estimates did not formally supersede the approved electrification plan. It insisted that the developer remained responsible for establishing the prescribed 33/0.4 kV network for a multipoint development.
HERC’s Findings and Directions
The Commission recorded five principal findings. First, the existing 33/11/0.4 kV infrastructure had departmental involvement and was not a unilateral creation by BPTP. Second, a genuine conflict existed between the earlier comprehensive scheme and the later project-specific plan. Third, the May 2022 clarification from DHBVN’s commercial wing was relevant and supported project-specific treatment. Fourth, requiring dismantling at that stage would cause avoidable hardship to consumers, financial waste, delay in supply, and inefficient use of already-created infrastructure. Fifth, the conduct of officials who approved estimates, drawings or works contrary to the sanctioned plan required examination.
The operative directions were precise. BPTP was permitted to retain and commission the existing system, including the 33 kV primary intake, 33/11 kV substation, internal 11 kV network and transformers, subject to safety and technical requirements. DHBVN was ordered to energise and commission the constructed 33/11 kV substation and associated 33 kV feeding lines within 30 days of receiving the order, subject to the existing safety clearance, testing and departmental procedures.
BPTP was directed to complete, augment or upgrade the infrastructure, including transformer capacity, to meet the approved ultimate load within two months. DHBVN was directed to release all pending and new individual connections subject to formalities. BPTP was required to apply for an electrification plan under the single-point supply regime within one month; DHBVN was to decide the application within 30 days of receipt, failing which the plan would be deemed approved. Finally, DHBVN was directed to initiate appropriate departmental action against officials responsible for approving estimates, drawings or works contrary to the approved electrical plan, with the stated purpose of preventing recurrence.
HERC expressly limited the decision to the peculiar facts of Park 81. It stated that the order should not be read as a general relaxation of electricity regulations, sales circulars, approved electrification plans, load norms, or requirements applicable to the 33 kV Pilot Project Belt, nor as a precedent for other projects.
Single-Point Supply and Consumer Relief
The direction requiring a single-point supply electrification plan does not contradict the release of individual connections. Under the Single Point Supply Regulations, 2020 (specifically Regulation 4.1(b) as referenced by the Commission), electricity is supplied at a designated point while internal distribution, individual consumer connections, common services and non-domestic supply loads are governed by the applicable framework.
The physical retention of the existing network and the regulatory framing of the supply arrangement are related but distinct questions. HERC required the developer to bring the project within the single-point regime while ensuring residents could obtain individual connections without further delay attributable to the infrastructure dispute.
