HERC Dismisses Rooftop Solar Review Petition Over Delay And INR 50,000 Fee In Haryana

The Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC), Panchkula, has dismissed a review petition concerning the state’s rooftop solar regulations on preliminary procedural grounds, without examining the substantive legal and policy issues raised in the case.

The order was issued on September 22, 2026, following a hearing held in August. The Commission also rejected two interlocutory applications filed along with the review petition.

The matter originated from HERC’s final order dated October 30, 2025, relating to the 2nd Amendment to the HERC Rooftop Solar Regulations. The review petitioner, a registered stakeholder and prosumer, claimed that his name, written objections and physical attendance at a public hearing held in September 2025 were incorrectly omitted from the official record.

The petition also raised concerns regarding the treatment of electricity generated by rooftop solar consumers. It argued that distribution licensees, including Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN), collect applicable retail electricity charges from consumers while solar generation credits available to prosumers are not provided through an equivalent set-off mechanism. According to the petition, the issue could affect a large number of rooftop solar consumers in Haryana, including households adopting solar systems under the PM Surya Ghar initiative.

Two interlocutory applications were submitted with the review petition. The first sought condonation of delay or exclusion of certain periods under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioner argued that the time taken to obtain certified copies and other records should be excluded while calculating the prescribed 45-day limitation period.

HERC, however, rejected the request. The Commission noted that the initial request for a copy of the order was submitted on October 25, 2025, before the final order was officially issued on October 30, 2025. It therefore held that the request could not be relied upon for excluding time from the limitation period.

The Commission further observed that later requests for attendance sheets and submissions concerned supplementary material and were not necessary for calculating the core limitation period. It concluded that sufficient cause had not been established for the remaining delay up to the electronic filing of the review petition on January 23, 2026.

The second application sought exemption from the prescribed court fee. The petitioner argued that a sanctioned solar load of 19.90 kW qualified as a small consumer and therefore warranted a fee waiver. An alternative request was made for exemption on public interest grounds.

HERC clarified that the small-consumer fee exemption applies to standard petitions and does not extend to a review of a suo-motu order, for which a mandatory fee of ₹50,000 applies. The Commission also declined to grant a discretionary public interest exemption.

As the limitation requirement was not met and the prescribed fee was not paid, HERC dismissed the review petition without examining the substantive questions concerning rooftop solar credit set-offs, consumer compensation or regulatory consultation procedures.