Petition of DERC (Supply Code and performance Standards) Regulations of Tariff Order – EQ
Summary:
—-
## Key Details at a Glance
| Parameter | Details |
|———–|———|
| **Petition No.** | 07/2026 |
| **Petitioner** | National Capital Region Transport Corporation Ltd. (NCRTC) |
| **Respondent** | BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (BRPL) |
| **Key Legal Provisions Invoked** | Electricity Act, 2003: Sections 50, 86(1)(a), 127, 129, 142 |
| **Related Regulations** | DERC (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017 (Regulations 6, 17(5), 84) |
| **Related Tariff Order** | DERC Order dated Sept 30, 2021 in Petition No. 1/2021 (True-up up to FY 2019-20 & ARR for FY 2021-22) |
| **Hearing Date** | April 7, 2026 |
| **Status** | BRPL granted 1 week (last opportunity) to file reply |
| **Next Hearing** | After 10 days (approx. April 17-20, 2026) |
| **Consequence of Non-compliance** | Matter to be proceeded “in accordance with law” (likely ex-parte order or penalties) |
## Legal Framework – Key Sections Invoked
| Section | Provision | Business Implication |
|———|———–|———————-|
| **Section 50** | Power of SERCs to specify Supply Code | Relates to standards of power supply, billing, and consumer rights. NCRTC likely alleges violation of supply code obligations. |
| **Section 86(1)(a)** | DERC’s function to determine tariff | NCRTC may be disputing the tariff charged by BRPL for its RRTS infrastructure. |
| **Section 127** | Appeal against assessment of electricity charges | Suggests NCRTC may have challenged a bill or assessment by BRPL. |
| **Section 129** | Commission’s power to issue directions to licensees | DERC can direct BRPL to comply with its obligations. NCRTC is seeking mandatory directions. |
| **Section 142** | Penalty for non-compliance of Commission’s orders | NCRTC may be alleging that BRPL has not complied with a prior DERC order (possibly the Sept 30, 2021 Tariff Order or Supply Code regulations). |
**Also invoked:** Regulations **6, 17(5), and 84** of the **DERC Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2017** – which cover:
– **Regulation 6:** General obligations of a licensee (reliable supply, quality of service)
– **Regulation 17(5):** Likely related to metering, billing, or disconnection provisions
– **Regulation 84:** Penalties and compensation for non-compliance
## Chronology & Current Status
| Date | Event |
|——|——-|
| **Prior to April 7, 2026** | NCRTC files Petition No. 07/2026 (exact filing date not specified in ROP) |
| **April 7, 2026** | Hearing before DERC (Members: Surender Babbar and Ram Naresh Singh) |
| **April 7, 2026** | Ld. Sr. Counsel for BRPL seeks one week’s time to file reply |
| **April 7, 2026** | DERC grants **one week as last opportunity** to BRPL |
| **April 7, 2026** | Matter listed **after 10 days** (for further hearing) |
| **~April 17-20, 2026** | Next expected hearing date |
**Consequence if BRPL fails to file reply:** DERC will proceed “in accordance with law” – which may include:
– **Ex-parte proceedings** (deciding the matter without BRPL’s response)
– **Issuing directions under Section 129**
– **Imposing penalties under Section 142**
## Business Implications
### For NCRTC (Petitioner):
– **RRTS project timelines** may be impacted if power supply issues are not resolved quickly.
– Success in this petition could lead to:
– **Tariff refunds** if BRPL overcharged
– **Compensation** for supply code violations
– **Mandatory directions** to BRPL to ensure reliable supply
– **Risk:** Even if NCRTC wins, BRPL may appeal to APTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity), causing further delays.
### For BRPL (Respondent):
– **Regulatory scrutiny** – DERC has granted only a “last opportunity” to reply, indicating limited patience.
– **Financial risk** – Potential penalties under Section 142 (can be substantial) + compensation payouts.
– **Reputational risk** – A public dispute with a government infrastructure project (RRTS) may impact BRPL’s standing.
– **Strategic imperative:** BRPL must file a robust reply within one week to avoid adverse orders.
### For Other DISCOMs (Tata Power-DDL, BYPL):
– This case may set a **precedent** for how disputes with infrastructure entities (metros, railways, RRTS) are resolved.
– Tariff classification for **mass transit infrastructure** may be clarified.
### For Infrastructure Developers (NCRTC, DMRC, etc.):
– This case highlights the importance of **clear tariff agreements** with DISCOMs before commissioning projects.
– Invoking **Section 142** (penalty) and **Section 129** (directions) can be effective tools to force DISCOM compliance.
– However, litigation is time-consuming – alternative dispute resolution may be faster.
### For Regulators (DERC):
– This case tests DERC’s ability to enforce its Supply Code and Tariff Orders against large DISCOMs.
– The “last opportunity” warning signals a firm stance – likely leading to a decisive order soon.
### For Consumers (Indirect Impact):
– If BRPL is penalized, the penalty amount may ultimately be passed through to consumers as part of future ARR filings (unless disallowed by DERC).
—-
For more information please see below link:
