HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION SCO 180, SECTOR 5, PANCHKULA 134109, HARYANA

CASE NO. HERC/PRO – 1 OF 2001

DATES OF HEARING: 08.05.2001 09.05.2001

DATE OF ORDER: 02.07.2001

Shri V.S. Ailawadi, Chairman Shri Ramesh Chandra, Member Shri K. S. Chaube, Member

In the matter of hearing in respect of rates of Monthly Minimum charges in compliance with the order dated 13.03.2001 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in FAO No. 610 of 2001, FAO No. 696 of 2001 and FAO No. 710 of 2001 directing the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission to give opportunity of hearing to the appellants and all other persons likely to be affected. PRESENT:­ On behalf of the organizations at Serial No._____ Mr. D.C. Narang

1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 18, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 145, 146, 147, 148, 175 of Annexure On behalf of the organizations at Serial No.----­ Mr. S. K. Huria 13, 14, 17, 20 to 23, 51, 53, 55, 70, 74, 81, 84 to 86 91, 96, 98 to 105, 107 to 113, 152, 153, 155 to 166 174, 179 of Annexure

On behalf of the organizations at Serial No.---­ Mr. Rajiv Chawala 114 to 120 of Annexure

Page 1 of 28 On behalf of the organizations at Serial No. Mr. D. K. Bhatti 62 of Annexure

On behalf of the organizations at Serial No. Mr. S.C. Gupta 64 of Annexure On behalf of the organizations at Serial No. Mr. Parmesh Bindal 65 of Annexure On behalf of the organizations at Serial No. Mr. Vinod Gupta 61 of Annexure Advocate

On behalf of the organizations at Serial No. Mr. Harpawan Kumar 142 of Annexure Advocate On behalf of the Yamunanagar – Jagadhri Mr. K. D. Sehgal Chamber of Commerce and Industry Yamunanagar Advocate On behalf of Faridabad Small Scale Industry Mr. S. K. Srivastva On behalf of M/s Lagu Kuter Udyog Sangh, Mr. Ram Phal Haryana , Chakker Road, Kath Mandi, Jind On behalf of M/s Panchkula Hi-Tech Alloys Limited, Mr. D. P. Sharma Plot No. 23, Phase II, Industrial Area, Panchkula On behalf of M/s The Haryana Chamber of Mr. C. B. Goel Commerce & Industry, 239, Industrial Area, Phase I, Panchkula On behalf of Haryana Chamber of Commerce Mr. Rajneesh Kumar & Industry, Kurukeshatra On behalf of J. C. Small Scale Industry Association Mr. S. S. Wallah Jawahar Colony, NIT, Faridabad On behalf of Small Scale Aluminium Utensils Mr. Satish Jain Manufacturing Association, Jagahdri On behalf of The Jagadhri Metal Manufacturers & Mr. S. L. Batra Suppliers Association, Khera Bazar, Jagadhri (Haryana) On behalf of M/s RMS Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., # 4, Mr. S.C. Dave Sector 8, Panchkukla On behalf of Laghu Udyot Bharti, Panchkula Mr. R. K. Bhardwaj On behalf of HVPNL Mr. Amit Kapoor Advocate

Page 2 of 28 BRIEF HISTORY 1. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred as “the Commission”) was established on August 17, 1998 under the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Reform Act 1997 (hereafter referred as the ‘Reform Act’). The State Government unbundled the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB) in August 1998 into separate functional entities, viz. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL) for generation of power and Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) for conduct of transmission and supply of electricity business in the State. 2. On 4th February 1999, licences for conducting Transmission and Bulk Supply and Distribution and Retail Supply business were issued to Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPN) in terms of the powers vested with the Commission under Section 15 of the Reform Act. 3. As per the terms of the licence condition No. 21.1 for Transmission and Bulk supply and the licence condition No. 22.2 for Distribution and Retail supply, the licensee, HVPNL was required to file its Annual Revenue Requirement for financial year 2000-01 by the end of December 1999. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) filed its Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) for 2000-01 on 31st December 1999, which was subsequently revised on Commission’s directions and HVPNL submitted its modified ARR for 2000-01 and Tariff applications for D&RS business. 4. The Commission’s public hearings on Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) for the 2000-01 and Tariff for D&RS business were held on, 27th September. 19th & 20th October and on 2nd and 3rd November 2000. During the public hearing, the Commission heard the submissions made by the respondents and reply by the licensee. In terms of the powers vested in the Commission under section 26(7) read with section 11 of the Reform Act, the Commission passed the Tariff Order on 22.12.2000. In its order, the Commission revised tariff

Page 3 of 28 for all categories of consumers. The Commission also rationalised Monthly Minimum Charges (MMC) for various categories of consumers. 5. The following three petitions were filed with the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana against the revision of minimum monthly charges for LT and HT industrial consumers in the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 22nd Dec. 2000. 1. M/s Kaithal Rice & General Mills & others (FAO No. 610/2001) 2. M/s Hindustan Wires Ltd. (FAO No. 696/2001) 3. M/s Molly Tools & others (FAO No. 710/2001) The Hon’ble High Court disposed off the above three appeals and issued the following direction to the Commission in its order dated 13th March 2001, “……these appeals are disposed of with a direction to the commission to give notice of the proposed revision in minimum monthly charges within a period of three weeks from today in two newspapers giving two weeks time so as to enable the appellants and all other persons likely to be affected to file their objections along with other documents in support of their submissions. One week’s time would be given to the respondents to file rejoinder to the objections. Thereafter, the commission shall hold hearing on a date mentioned in the public notice and continue to hold hearings till they are finally concluded. No adjournment of any sort shall be given. In case the enhanced minimum monthly charges are reduced, the amount paid in excess by the appellants or other LT and HT consumers, shall be adjusted in the ensuing bills.”

BRIEF SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS RAISED. 6. As per the Hon’ble High Court’s order, the commission issued public notices in three national newspapers for holding public hearing on 8th & 9th May at Red Bishop, Panchkula. The petitioners were asked to file their written comments by 12th April 2001. The Commission received in all

Page 4 of 28 written objections from 368 petitioners. Out of these, only 180 were filed as per the procedure prescribed by the Commission in its Conduct of Business Regulations, 1998. 7. The Commission heard the views of the petitioners and the reply of HVPNL during the public hearings held on 8th and 9th May 2001 at Panchkula. Arguments were advanced by the above noted representatives of the organizations mentioned against each of them. 8. The Commission allowed opportunity to Sh. D.R.Bansal, counsel for M/s Kaithal Rice Mills & others who were one of the petitioners in FAO No. 610/2001 before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana to make oral submissions. The Commission noted with concern that the counsel failed to appear for making any oral arguments/oral submissions in spite of the opportunity given to him. 9. The Commission has considered all the written objections filed along with affidavits and opportunity was also given to representatives of all the petitioners to make oral submissions during public hearing. The Commission allowed persons from the public who had not filed their objections in the prescribed form or within the stipulated period to make their oral submissions. 10. The objections and various submissions made in the written objections as well as during the hearing are discussed below: a) It was contended by almost all the petitioners that the revision of MMC was made by the Commission suo-moto and that the licensee had not sought any increase in MMC in their tariff filing for the year 2000-2001. The petitioners could not raise the objections earlier since no revision in the MMC had been sought by the licensee and also adequate opportunity was not available with the public to express any views or objections on the question of revision of MMC b) An objection was raised by M/s Jindal Strips and M/s Hindustan Wires Ltd. about the jurisdiction of the Commission to go into the issue of MMC. It is contended that the MMC is not part of the tariff and the Commission’s function is confined only to the fixing of tariff and not to go in to general

Page 5 of 28 conditions of supply and laying down or revising MMC, which was a function of the licensee. It was also contended by the Counsel for M/S Hindustan Wires that the MMC in actual practice acts as tax which the Commission has no jurisdiction to levy. c) It was also argued that the procedure prescribed by the Commission for taking up suo moto issue as set out in Regulations 17 and 18 of the Commission’s Conduct of Business Regulations, 1998 was not observed. It was contended that the utility had not given any basis for increase in MMC both at the time of tariff filing and even now in the reply to the petition and no data, whatsoever, has been supplied by the utility in this regard to justify increase in MMC. d) It was also argued that the licensee’s contention on the one hand that MMC is intended to recover fixed cost component for the investment made on infrastructure and that it did not have any correlation with the energy consumption charges and on the other hand that MMC was integral with the recovery of variable cost of energy was inconsistent. In view of the inconsistency, the licensee’s own reply of fixing MMC in relation to variable tariff per unit is illegal and it does not find support from any law. It is further argued that no data has been furnished by the licensee including that on the interest on its borrowed funds. e) It was contended by a number of petitioners that the licensee was not justified in recovering MMC as all expenses have been allowed to the licensee through tariff, which has been fixed by the Commission. f) Most of the petitioners submitted that the MMC if, at all, has to be charged, it should only include reasonable return on the capital expenditure incurred by the licensee in terms of Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It was argued that annual MMC or minimum guarantee was applicable to only two part tariff system. It could not be levied in single part tariff. In support of this, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 11.10.75 in civil appeal No.1306 of 1975.

Page 6 of 28 g) It was also submitted that the Commission has not considered that the licensee was already recovering the advance consumption deposit (ACD), service charges, line rentals etc from the consumers and no interest is paid to the consumers on the ACD. The Commission should have considered the cost of ACD as integral part of MMC while fixing MMC. h) A number of petitioners in the LT industries category has submitted that a majority of the industries work on single shift basis and include industries which are seasonal in nature whose business usually runs for a few months in a year and for the rest of the year their electricity requirement is limited to lighting load only. Such seasonal industries face difficulties in surrendering the load during off season and that too after paying MMC for an additional month. It was submitted that in the case of small scale industries, the basis for fixing MMC as per connected load was unjustified since their units do not require simultaneous use of all installed machines. Many small scale units have normal business only for limited duration of the year e.g. industries manufacturing coolers, fans, utensils and agro industries, which function seasonally. i) It was also contended that most of LT industries were engineering industries where annual load factor is only 25% and the minimum demand factor is 65%. On account of irregular supply of electricity, LT industries have set up their own generators, which involve extra financial burden on them. It was argued that the Commission assumes a consumption of 47 units in a month for each KW of connected load on historical basis. For consuming 47 units the industry requires 7.5 hrs continuous supply of power based on 25% load factor and not 2 hrs as claimed by the Licensee. The Licensee is providing neither continuous supply nor the desired voltage as a result the industry is not in a position to consume necessary power. The LT industrial consumers have also contended that the increase in the MMC should have been linked to the percentage increase in the energy charges as per Tariff Order of the Commission.

Page 7 of 28 j) On behalf of the HT (General & Arc Furnace) consumers, it was argued that huge amount has been spent in putting up equipment for maintaining electricity supply. The petitioners were also maintaining good Power Factor. By increasing MMC, the industry would have no incentive to conserve electricity since they will be forced to consume up to the MMC level. It was also contended that the increase in the MMC should have been limited to 16.25 % at which percentage, the tariff for industrial consumers was revised. In the case of small Arc furnaces manufacturing special steel, it was argued that the use of furnace was limited to only 3 to 4 days in a month for which full load is required and for rest of the month the utilization of the electricity is low because most of the jobs are carried out in the machine shop. k) The petitioners on behalf of LT industries having a connected load between 1 to 20 KW submitted that many of the units were small and their average consumption was very low because they work on job work basis. Since the job work was limited, actual power consumption remains lower. It was argued that such small scale industrial units do not run more than a single machine at a time in view of the peculiar nature of job work and also the prevailing industrial recession. On account of this, less energy consumption takes place and the MMC based on connected load becomes excessive. It was argued that the difficulties faced by Small Scale Industrial units, especially those having connected load of 1 to 20 KW should be kept in view of their peculiar nature of functioning. l) Apart from the above mentioned issues, the petitioners also raised issues relating to method for assessment of connected load, surrender of excess load, levy of MMC on MDI metered demand and introduction of two-part tariff. LICENSEE’S RESPONSE 11. Shri Amit Kapur representing on behalf of the licensee in his detailed reply refuted the objections of the petitioners. The counsel argued that the

Page 8 of 28 concept of MMC has been in vogue for a long time and that the MMC has been accepted as a minimum levy of consumption by the consumers in terms of standard Application and Agreement form as laid down by the erstwhile HSEB. All consumers applying for LT/HT connections are generally required to fill in details of their requirements as also to agree upon to (a) take supply of electrical energy up to the connected load/contract demand and (b) pay for such supply in accordance with the applicable tariff and all such other proper charges at rates prescribed by the Licensee. Further the consumer declares that he is bound by the schedules of tariffs, general and service charges as also the provisions of clause VI of the schedule to the Indian Electricity Act 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 and any other applicable instructions and circulars issued for equitable and efficient distribution of electrical energy. HVPNL’s Counsel also contended that the revision of MMC was part of the schedule of general supply conditions attached to the schedule of tariff and therefore it was integral part of the tariff on which the Commission has full jurisdiction. The levy of MMC has been upheld in several rulings of Hon’ble High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Counsel placed reliance on the following rulings of Supreme Court of India, (i). Bihar State Electricity Board v. Green Rubber Industries; (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 731.

(ii). Andhra Steel Corporation Limited v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board; (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 263.

(iii). Raymond Limited & Another v. MP Electricity Board; (2001) Supreme Court Cases 534.

The counsel stated that in view of the settled law there was adequate legal foundation and justification for charging of MMC and the Commission was fully right and justified in rationalizing the MMC vide its Tariff Order dated 22nd Dec. 2000.

Page 9 of 28 ORDER

12. It has been contended by almost all the petitioners that licensee had not sought any increase in MMC in their tariff filing for the year 2000-2001 and the revision of MMC was made by the Commission suo-moto. Since revision in the MMC was made by the Commission suo-moto adequate opportunity was not available with the public to express their views and objections on this question at the time of hearing. It has also been contended that the Commission has no jurisdiction to revise the MMC which is not part of the tariff and it was contended on behalf of M/s Hindustan Wires Ltd, that MMC was in the nature of a tax and hence outside the purview of the Commission. 13. While it is true that the licensee had not asked for any increase in MMC in tariff filing for the year 2000-2001 the Commission observed that during the past many years the MMC had not moved in step with the revision in the rates of electricity supply to different categories of consumers and for reasons to be dealt with later in this order, the Commission had decided to revise the MMC. Now as a consequence of the order of Hon’ble High Court, the Commission has given ample opportunity to every one to present their views and objections on the revision of MMC. 14. The objection to the revision of MMC on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Commission is not well founded. In order to understand the correct position of the Commission’s power in determining tariff, it will be useful to reproduce relevant provision of section 11 of the Reform Act which lays down, inter alia, the following function of the Commission :­ Section 11(1)(e) “To regulate the purchase, distribution, supply and utilization of electricity, the quality of service, the tariff and charges payable keeping in view both the interest of the consumer as well as the consideration that the supply and distribution cannot be maintained unless the charges for the electricity supplied are adequately levied and duly collected.”

Page 10 of 28 15. It will be useful to refer to the provisions relating to revenue requirement and tariff filing by the licensee as provided in the Reform Act. Section 26 of the Act provides that the licensee shall be allowed the expected revenue from charges, which it is permitted to recover pursuant to the terms of the licence. The Reform Act also lays down broad parameters within which the tariff functions of the Commission are defined and also the parameters for designing tariff by the licensee. The relevant provisions of Section 26 of the Act are reproduced below:­ Section 26(2) ­ “The Commission shall [subject to the provisions of sub-section (3)] be entitled to prescribe the terms and conditions for the determination of the licensee’s revenue and tariffs by regulations duly published in the official gazette and in such other manner as the Commission considers appropriate provided that in doing so the Commission shall be bound by the following parameters; (a) The financial principles and their applications provided in the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 read with sections 57 and 57-A of the said Act: (b) The factors which would encourage efficiency, economic use of the resources, good performance, optimum investments and other matters which the Commission considers appropriate keeping in view the salient object and purposes of the provisions of this Act; and (c) The interest of the consumer including that the consumers are not exploited because of any monopolistic or scarcity situation and at the same time the consumers pay for the use of the electricity in a reasonable manner to maintain the electricity generation, transmission, distribution and supply on commercial principles.

(3) Where the Commission departs from factors specified in the Sixth Schedule of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 while

Page 11 of 28 determining the licensees’ revenues and tariffs it shall record the reasons therefore in writing.” Under Sub-section 6 of the Section 26, obligations in respect of tariff making are placed on the licensee. Inter-alia, any tariff implemented under this section: (a) “shall not show undue preference to any consumer of electricity, but may differentiate according to the consumer’s load factor or power factor, the consumer’s total consumption of energy during any specified period, or the time at which supply is required; (b) shall be just and reasonable and be such as to promote economic efficiency in the supply and consumption of electricity; and (c) shall satisfy all other relevant provisions of this Act and the conditions of the relevant licence.” 16. Further according to section 26(7) of the Haryana Electricity Reform Act. 1997 if the Commission considers the tariff proposed by the licensee or amended tariff of the licensee does not satisfy any of the provisions of sub-section 6, it shall within 60 days of receipt of all the information that it required and after consultation with the Commission Advisory Committee and the licensee, notify the licensee that the proposed tariff or amended tariff is unacceptable to the Commission and it shall provide the licensee an alternative tariff or amended tariff which shall be implemented by the Licensee. 17. It will be clear from the aforesaid provisions of the Reform Act that revision of tariff including MMC falls well within the purview of the Commission, even where the Licensee has not sought revision of certain aspects of the tariff. Section 26(7) of the Reform Act makes it abundantly clear that the Commission is well within its jurisdiction to accept the tariff proposed by the Licensee or provide the Licensee an alternative tariff or amended tariff which the Licensee is bound to implement. That being the position of jurisdiction of the Commission under the Reform Act, the

Page 12 of 28 challenge to the jurisdiction of the Commission in revising the MMC without any proposal from the Licensee fails. 18. It will be pertinent to point out here that the Commission’s jurisdiction to determine tariff under section 26 read with sections 11 and 15(5) of the Haryana Electricity Reform Act, 1997 is not that of an adjudicator or a quasi judicial Tribunal to decide on a lis or dispute between the two contesting parties. The jurisdiction is inquisitorial and is of a price fixation authority. The proceedings to be held by the Commission in determining tariff and in dealing with matters connected with tariff are not adversarial proceedings where the Commission is confined to what took place during the hearing. In exercise of its inquisitorial function to determine tariff, the Commission can and is required to go further than the case presented to it in the proceedings and arrive at a just and proper tariff to various class and classes of consumers. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of: (a) Chingleput Bottlers V Majestic Bottling Company AIR 1984 SC 1030 at page 1042 (b) Corps Juris Secundum Vol 29 page 1032 (c) R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commission, ex p. Moore (1965) 1 All ER 81 at 93 (e) (d) R v National Insurance Commissioner, ex p. Viscusi (1974) 2 All ER 724 at page 732, 734 (e) R v Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies ex p. New cross building Society(1984) 2 All ER 27 at page 45(e). 19. The Commission is also unable to accept the logic that MMC is a tax which only the State Govt. is competent to impose. The MMC is not a tax but is a minimum charge prescribed for different categories of consumers according to their load and consumption pattern etc. 20. We shall now deal with the question whether imposition of Monthly Minimum Charge is justified or reasonable. In this connection, we would like to draw support from the various judicial pronouncements made by different High Courts of the Country as also Supreme Court of India.

Page 13 of 28

In Bihar State Electricity Board V/s Green Rubber Industries & others (1990)1 SCC 731 while dealing with the question whether the stipulation to pay minimum guaranteed charges irrespective of whether energy was consumed or not is reasonable and valid, it was, interalia, held by the Supreme Court of India that considered by the test of reasonableness it cannot be said to be unreasonable in as much as supply of electricity to a consumer involves incurring of over head installation expenses by the Board which do not vary with the quantity of electricity consumed and the installation has to be continued irrespective of whether the energy is consumed or not.

Again in Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. & others V/s A.P.S.E.B. and other (1991) 3 SCC 263 while appreciating the genesis of prescription of minimum charges, the Supreme Court of India held that the purpose of prescribing minimum charges is to ensure that no undue loss is caused to the Electricity Board because the absence of minimum charges is likely to create a tendency in a prospective consumer to have connection for inflated requirement and having agreed to meet such requirement the Electricity Board would be under obligation to maintain the supply up to that requirement even if no or very little energy was consumed.

In M.G.Natesa Chettiar V/s Madras State Electricity Board (1969) 1 MLJ 69 it was held by the Madras High Court that the minimum guarantee fixed was only consideration for keeping the energy available to the consumer at his end; it was not a penalty for not consuming a stated quantity of energy but was a concession shown up to the amount fixed, energy at a specified rate could be consumed free, consumption beyond only had to be paid for.

Page 14 of 28 In Bhagwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow V/s U.P.State Electricity Board (AIR 1979) All 249 it was held by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court that the Board is empowered to revise the rates and that imposition of minimum consumption guarantee charges imposed by the tariff schedule under section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 was valid.

Further, in Abdul Gaffar V/s Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (1975)2 APLJ 119 a Division Bench of A.P. High Court held that fixation of monthly minimum charges based on connected load and revisional rate of electrical consumption by non-domestic consumers in accordance with the factors in Section 49 (2) of the supply Act, 1948 was neither ultra vires nor arbitrary.

In Raymond Ltd. & another V/s M.P.State Electricity Board & others (2001) 1 SCC 534 it was held by the Supreme Court of India that the question of exonerating the consumer from the liability undertaken to pay minimum guaranteed charge for a month and billing only for the actual consumption of energy measured in units will and can arise and has also been considered for determination only in case the supply by the Board itself fell short of the minimum of energy, the consumption of which goes to make up the minimum guaranteed sum. If only the supply was available for consumption but the consumer did not consume so much of energy up to the extent of obligation cast upon him to pay the minimum charge, there is no escape from the payment of the minimum guaranteed charges except in very exceptional cases.

Further in the same case the Supreme Court of India held that as a matter of general principle any stipulation for payment of minimum guaranteed charges is unexceptionable. The Board which undertakes generation, transmission and supply of electrical

Page 15 of 28 energy in order to fulfil its obligation has to lay down and install the required equipments and gadgets and constantly keep them in good repair and condition to render it possible for the consumer to draw the supply required at any and all time. It was further held that contract for supply of electrical energy cannot be treated on a par with any other contract of mutual rights and obligations, having regard to the peculiar problems involved in the generation, transmission and supply which invariably depend upon the vagaries of monsoon as well as short supply to them of the required coal and oil in time and similar other problems over which the Board cannot have absolute control. The recurring commitments to constant and periodical maintenance of supply lines and other installations cannot be anytheless even during such times and such onerous responsibilities cannot be left to fall exclusively upon the Board and it is only keeping in view all these aspects, payments of minimum guaranteed charges is necessarily inbuilt into the tariff system of the Board and the reasonableness or legality of the same cannot be considered either in the abstract or in isolation of all these aspects. It is for this reason that all over the consumer is also made to share the constraints on the Board’s economy even during such periods. In fact, the tariff inclusive of a minimum guaranteed sum irrespective of supply/consumption factors appears to be the consideration for the commitments undertaken by the Board as a package deal and it is not possible to allow the consumer to wriggle out of such commitments merely on the ground that the Board is not able to supply at any point of time or period the required or agreed quantum of supply or even supply up to the level of the guaranteed rate of charges. 21. In view of what has been mentioned above, it is amply clear that monthly minimum charges are fully justified and reasonable and are very much a part of the tariff and suo-moto revision of the MMC by the Commission was well within its jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 26(7) of

Page 16 of 28 the Reform Act, 1997. It is also clear that the MMC cannot be avoided merely because HVPN is not able to supply at any point of time or period the required or agreed quantum of supply or even up to the level of the guaranteed rate of charges. 22. As regards the objection that the procedure prescribed in Regulation 17 and 18 of the Conduct of Business Regulations 1998 for taking up suo­ moto issue was not observed, we would like to state that Regulation 17 and 18, in so far as taking up of issue suo moto is concerned, do not apply to the tariff issues which are governed solely by the provision of Section 26 in general and sub section 7 thereof in particular. 23. It has been argued that there was inconsistency in the Licensee’s contentions, on the one hand that MMC is to recover the fixed cost component for the investment made in infrastructure and they do not have any co-relation with the energy consumption charges, and on the other hand that MMC was integral with the recovery of variable cost of energy. It has been argued by some petitioners that MMC was applicable only in case of two part tariff and it could not be levied in a single part tariff. 24. It is universally accepted that under two part tariff fixed cost component is recovered through demand charges. However, when only single part tariff is enforced, fixed cost component is integrated into the single part tariff. The prescription of MMC becomes essential in a single part tariff in order to recover the component of fixed cost which is recovered through demand charges under two part tariff. Recovery of the fixed cost component would become impossible in a single part tariff if no MMC is prescribed and in such a situation the Licensee might find his business financially unviable. Moreover, MMC was not an additional charge and It became operative only if the consumption fell below the level required for reaching MMC at the prevailing tariff. It would thus be clear that MMC is only a mechanism under single part tariff to effect recovery of fixed cost component. It would be unfair and unjust to deny a Licensee having single part tariff to recover the fixed cost component of charges which is allowed to be recovered under two part tariff. The mere manner of

Page 17 of 28 charging of tariff, single part or two part, should not make a difference to the Licensee financially. 25. A number of petitioners contended that licensee was not justified in recovering the MMC as all expenses have been allowed to the licensee through the tariff which has been fixed by the Commission. It was argued that licensee is allowed annual revenue requirement by the Commission which, inter alia, permits the Licensee to earn reasonable return on capital investment including interest and, therefore, there was no justification that MMC should be levied on consumers along with the energy charges. 26. In this connection, we would like to stress that the element of “reasonable return including interest” included in per Kwh rate will enable recovery of full fixed cost component only if entire sales taken into account in fixing the Annual Revenue Requirement and tariff actually materialise. In case, sale projections visualised in the revenue requirement and tariff proposals go awry, the total fixed cost component for the licensee during the year would not be realised. Therefore, the quantity of energy (Kwhs) to be used by each consumer every month should reach at least the level necessary to recover the fixed cost component. This will be possible only if minimum monthly charges are linked to a minimum level of electricity consumption. The Commission had all along kept this consideration in its view while passing the tariff order of 22nd December 2000. In our view, therefore, the plea that Monthly Minimum Charges are not justified as all expenses have been allowed to Licensee through the tariff fixed by the Commission fails. 27. The Commission observes that HSEB had prescribed certain conditions for supply of electricity in the form of agreement. It is settled law that where the consumer had entered into an agreement he is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is admitted that there is a standard application and agreement form of erstwhile HSEB which is applicable in the case of Licensee also. The consumer is required to fill up this form for taking LT or HT connection including terms like (a) to take supply of energy up to connected load/ contract demand and (b) pay for

Page 18 of 28 such supply in accordance with the applicable tariff and all such other proper charges on rates prescribed by the licensee and further the consumer is also bound by general conditions of supply. The agreement makes it clear that the consumer is bound to pay tariff and other charges which are prescribed from time to time. As already stated by us earlier in this order in a single part tariff which is being charged by the licensee at present, minimum monthly charges are integral part of the tariff and are part of the schedule and conditions of supply of electricity are specifically provided for in the agreement. Although no specific mention of minimum charges is found in the agreement, it is clearly covered by paragraph 23 of the agreement which read as under:­ “Methods of charging for supply given to particular class of consumer by the Board and the conditions attached thereto shall be those prescribed for particular supply in the schedule of tariff which may be amended from time to time”. This form of agreement has been in vogue for a very long time and on the basis of this agreement HSEB had been prescribing minimum monthly charges as part of the tariff from time to time. It would thus be seen that monthly minimum charges have been accepted in Haryana for many years and this continued even after coming into being of HVPN as a licensee. It is futile for the consumer to argue at this stage that under the present form of agreement minimum charges cannot be levied. 28. The Commission feels that the hue and cry from L.T. consumers against MMC is mostly because their connected load is inflated. The remedy, therefore, lies in taking action to reduce the sanctioned connected load to the minimum required. Seasonal industries can take recourse to the existing provision of temporary disconnection to get relief. 29. The petitioners have raised some other issues such as – levy of MMC based on MDI, assessment of connected load etc. These issues raised are important but they require deeper examination in view of various technical implications involved. Moreover, these issues are not related to the present matter which is before the Commission within the terms of

Page 19 of 28 order of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.610/2001, 696/2001 & 710/2001. 30. Although Shri D.R.Bansal, Advocate for M/s Kaithal Rice and General Mills and others V/s HERC in FAO No.610 of 2001 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana did not appear before the Commission in the hearings held on 8th and 9th May, 2001, the Commission would like to refer to the contents of paragraph 18 of their appeal preferred in the High Court . The contents of paragraph 18 are reproduced below:­ “That generally the industries run in one shift that too for eight hours a day. Even if the entire motors/appliances run for 8 hours during average 25 working days in a month the consumption of electricity cannot be equal to the minimum monthly charge of Rs.200/- per K.W. It will be much less when the total load of electricity is not run simultaneously every time. On an average not more than 50% of sanctioned load runs at a time”. 31. Such misunderstanding needs to be removed. If 1 K.W. load operates for 8 hours a day for 25 working days in a month, the monthly consumption would be 25x8 = 200 KWh in a month. If it is assumed that only 50% of the sanctioned load runs at a time, monthly consumption per K.W. would come to 100 KWh which at Rs.4.25 per Kwh will come to Rs.4.25 per K.W. per month. While the Commission has fixed only Rs.200/- per K.W. per month. The monthly minimum charges of Rs.200/- per K.W. per month would correspond to almost 25% of the sanctioned load for 8 hours a day on 25 working days in a month. 32. In order to deal with the objections of the petitioners that MMC of LT and HT industrial consumers were at a very high level, the Commission would like to explain how it had fixed MMC in its order of December 22, 2000 and also look at the historical background of MMC levied in Haryana by erstwhile HSEB. 33. During the course of hearing the Commission noticed that the import and purpose of MMC was usually misunderstood by consumers and some of

Page 20 of 28 them were even confusing MMC with terms like monthly minimum guarantee charge, security deposit, Advance Consumption Deposit, Load Factor etc. 34. The Commission would, therefore, like to clarify the concept of MMC and its purpose. The monthly minimum charges are levied from consumers to recover the fixed cost component of two part tariff. This basically consists of reasonable return on capital expenditure and standing charges such as Operation & Maintenance cost, salaries & wages, Administrative & General expenses etc. which are fixed in nature and are recoverable from consumers by the Licensee to maintain and keep the system in readiness to meet the demand of the consumers at any point of time. The variable charge, second part of the two part tariff, relates to cost of energy and technical losses i.e. energy lost in the Transmission and Distribution (T&D) net work during the transportation of energy up to the consumer’s premises. 35. The two-part tariff was once in force in Haryana but was given up for reasons best known to erstwhile HSEB. The Commission had tried to workout two part tariff in a scientific manner but due to non-availability of essential data from the licensee like sharing of coincident peak demand by each category of consumers, voltage level wise system losses in the T&D net work, realistic consumption pattern of each category of consumer according to different ranges of connected loads and the nature of load, the Commission could not work out the two part tariff for consumers of Haryana. 36. The Commission had thus no alternative but to accept single part tariff idea of the Licensee and tried to workout the charge based on minimum consumption level of each category of consumer which were expected to be less than average consumption level and considered it to be MMC by assuming diversity factors of various categories of loads. The Commission adopted the licensee’s figures of MMC which were in force in the past during 1.11.1967 to 1.1.1981 by working back the consumption

Page 21 of 28 levels for the industrial class which were fairly consistent during those years. 37. The distortion in consumption levels developed in the subsequent tariffs of the erstwhile HSEB after 1.10.84 as the amount of MMC did not keep pace with the change of tariff. This practice of adhoc increase in tariff and MMC in the past was not based on any scientific principles. As a result there was large reduction in consumption pattern of consumers after 1.10.84 as shown in the following Table No. 1.

TABLE NO. 1

Effective From MMC (Rs. Tariff Equivalent Equivalent per KW) (paise per kwh) Kwh per KW Load Factor 1.11.67 (<20 KW) 5 11 45.45 6.31 1.6.72 (<20 KW) 5 13.2 37.88 5.26 1.7.76 (<20 KW) 10.5 21 50.00 6.94 15.4.78 (<20 KW) 10.5 25 42.00 5.83 1.1.81 (<20 KW) 12 27 44.44 6.17 1.10.84 (<20 KW) 12 40 30.00 4.17 (21-100 KW) 16.5 50 33.00 4.58 1.4.85 (<20 KW) 12 53 22.64 3.14 (21-100 KW) 16.5 63 26.19 3.64 1.5.85 (<20 KW) 12 52 23.08 3.21 (21-100 KW) 16.5 64 25.78 3.58 1.12.87 (<20 KW) 12 60 20.00 2.78 (21-100 KW) 16.5 79 20.89 2.90 1.9.88 (<20 KW) 15 60 25.00 3.47 (21-100 KW) 20 79 25.32 3.52 1.12.90 (All) 20 80 25.00 3.47 5.6.92 40 90 44.44 6.17 1.2.94 40 175 22.86 3.18 28.12.94 50 240 20.83 2.89 1.7.96 50 300 16.67 2.32 15.6.98 60 392 15.31 2.13 1.1.2001 200 425 # 47.05 6.53 1.1.2001 200 446 44.84 6.23

38. Such a steep reduction in consumption pattern (Load Factor) was not realistic. The consumption pattern is basically dependent on life style, production processes, conservation measures and tariff rates etc. The

Page 22 of 28 best technical guide to observe consumption pattern of any category of consumers is Load Factor (LF) which is the ratio of the number of units consumed by a consumer during a given period to the number of units that would have been consumed had the maximum demand been maintained throughout that period, usually expressed as a percentage. The Load Factors in the absence of necessary data were worked out by the Commission based on the consumption level of each category of consumer and the connected load of such category of consumers. The relation between the connected load of any category and sub-category of consumers and the demand it is going to impose on the system net work is basically worked out by the Diversity Factor (DF). No consumer is likely to use total connected load at all the time in most of the cases until and unless he has single point appliance of 90 to 95% of total connected load (such as Atta Chakki etc.). If there are a number of appliances/goods wired into the consumer’s premises, simultaneous use of such appliances is only a part of the total connected load and is dependent on the diversity in use by that category of consumer and is denoted by the term called Diversity Factor (DF) which is the ratio of the maximum load of a consumer which can normally be used to the total connected sanctioned load. This is usually less than one and depends on the simultaneous usages of various loads as per the process requirement and may vary with season, time of the day etc. 39. In the absence of DF, the Commission worked out Load Factor based on connected load and not on load demand. A much lesser LF was considered for working out the minimum consumption level for each category of consumer including LT Industries category. The MMC was then worked out by multiplying this minimum consumption level by the cost of supply as per approved tariff rate. The Commission did not expect that any category of consumer would be consuming less electricity than was considered by it in working out the MMC. The LF worked but by the Commission is given in the following Table No. 2.

Page 23 of 28 TABLE NO. 2 Comparison of equivalent consumption per KW of connected load per month Category of Conne Consumpti Annual Annual Load Consumpti Consumption Consump Consumers cted on as per Load factor as per on/ KW of / KW of tion/KW load the tariff factor as the connected connected of conne­ order for per sales consumption load / load / month cted load/ 2000-01 manual of given in the month (In Kwh) month Licensee tariff (In kwh) (in Kwh) application (MW) (MU) (%) (%) ( as per ( as per tariff ( as per sales application) MMC) manual) Domestic 2246 2629 10.00 13.36 73.00 97.54 23.08 Non-Domestic 365 509 15.00 15.92 109.50 116.21 28.64 LT 1095 824 25.00 8.59 272.39 62.71 47.06 HT 1396 1929 25.00 15.77 272.39 115.15 48.90 Agric Metered 354 514 Subsidised Tariff as per Govt. policy Agric Un­ metered 1577 2290 MITC+ Lift irrigation 140 176 15.00 14.38 109.50 104.96 37.50 PWD 98 296 50.00 34.48 365.00 251.70 50.00 Rly. 76 178 Two Part tariff Other Bulk 96 201 15.00 23.90 109.50 174.48 48.90 Street Light 9 39 25.00 49.47 182.50 361.11 36.14

40. It is observed from the last column of the Table 2 that the consumers under L.T. Industries are consuming lowest energy per K.W. Even the domestic category of consumers is consuming much more than L.T. Industrial consumers. This is contrary to the normal characteristics of Industrial load. The consumption pattern i.e. consumption per KW of connected load of various categories of consumers as given by the licensee in the tariff application for the Financial Year 2000-2001 is also indicated in Table No.2.

41. The abnormally low consumption figure per KW of connected load in respect of certain category of LT Industrial consumers could be due to the following reasons:­

Page 24 of 28 (a) The number of Kwh recorded in the case of LT Industrial consumers is not correct which could be due to meters not operating or meters being slow or being by-passed without detection and rectification by the licensee. Theft of energy by certain consumers in this class cannot be ruled out as it might help them to evade taxes and duties levied on production which in turn are dependent on the amount of energy consumed, an index of production. It thus could result in considerable undue profit earning just by resorting to theft of energy.

(b) The load demand (‘connected load’ multiplied by ‘diversity factor’) is much higher i.e. the consumers have got sanctioned more load than the actual requirement perhaps because of installing more standby equipment for reliability, or these consumers want to avoid to get extra load sanctioned at a later date which, they fear, the licensee may be reluctant to sanction due to power shortage situation in the State.

42. The aggrieved consumers represented at the public hearing that their actual consumption was less than the consumption figure assumed in the MMC and, therefore, pleaded for re-consideration. The Commission, therefore, obtained data of connected load, actual consumption, status of performance of meters (defective/replaced) from the aggrieved consumers of LT/HT Industries during the hearing in May, 2001. As a result 225 LT consumers and 24 HT consumers submitted their consumption data. The data supplied by the consumers was scrutinised and vetted by the Licensee. The doubtful data was ignored and, based on verified data by the licensee, the load factors of the sample consumers were worked out. The Commission is fully aware that the data collected by it during the hearings is not representative. The licensee has also not been able to supply any representative sample data for different types of industries under LT and HT categories of consumers. An analysis of the

Page 25 of 28 different data collected and screened, though unrepresentative, reveals that monthly consumption per KW of connected load works out to :

(a) 22.24 Kwh for LT Industrial consumers having a connected load up to 20 K,W.(based on 191 cases); (b) 34.55 Kwh for LT Industrial consumers having connected load exceeding 20 K.W. (based on 34 cases); (c) 57.40 Kwh for HT Industrial consumers other than Steel Furnaces (based on 22 cases); and (d) 61.25 Kwh for HT consumers for Steel Furnaces/Rolling Mills (based on 2 cases).

43. In its tariff order of December 22, 2000, the Commission had directed the Licensee to have a survey of all L.T. industrial consumers carried out by an independent agency, which has not been done so far by the Licensee. In the absence of a detailed survey, the commission has no alternative but to go broadly by the data produced now before it.

44. After observing these figures of consumption pattern which were not available with the Commission at the time of tariff setting, the Commission has taken a view that even though these data cannot be relied upon fully due to their unrepresentative character and unrealistic assessment of connected load and abnormally low consumption, some adhoc relief could be given in MMC for LT Industrial and HT Industrial consumers (using Steel Furnaces & Rolling Mills), The Commission, therefore, having regard to the object of keeping the interest of the consumers and the Licensee in view and, in exercise of the powers under Section 26(7) of The Haryana Electricity Regulatory Reform Act 1997 and in partial modification of its tariff order dated 22nd December 2000, revises the MMC on adhoc basis for the following categories of consumers only:­

Page 26 of 28 (1) LT Industrial Power Supply

(a) (i) Rs. 120 per KW or part thereof of connected up to 20 KW. (ii) Rs. 150/- per KW or part thereof of connected load exceeding 20 Kw. (To be substituted in place of existing entry on page 117 in clause 3(vi)(a) of Annexure-1 of tariff order dated December 22, 2000.) (b) Also on page 92 of the said tariff order dated 22.12.2000 the last sentence of sub-para below table 6.21 will be substituted by the following sentence:

“The Commission approves an MMC of Rs.120/- per KW per month for connected load up to 20 KW and Rs.150/- per KW per month for others.”

2. HT Industrial & Steel Furnaces Power Supply

(a) Rs.250/- KVA of the contract demand may be substituted in place of Rs.400/- KVA of the contract demand under clause 4(vi)(a) of Annexure-1 of Tariff Order dated December 22, 2000. (b) Also on page 92 of the said tariff order dated December 22, 2000, the last sentence of paragraph 6.4.4 may be substituted by the following sentence:­

“The MMC for Steel Furnaces/Rolling Mills etc. is revised to Rs.250/- per KVA of contract demand”

MMC for all other categories of consumers shall remain unchanged.

45. The Commission also orders that the consequent over payments made by LT/HT consumers with effect from Ist January, 2001 shall be adjusted by

Page 27 of 28 HVPN in their ensuing bills. The HT/LT industrial consumers disconnected solely on account of non-payment of MMC charges fixed earlier from 1.1.2001 shall be re-connected without paying any reconnection charges within a week of this order and they will be liable to pay MMC as revised now with effect from 1.1.2001.

46. The Commission further directs the licensee to work out immediately the fixed cost component of energy for various categories of consumers based on consumption pattern/voltage level, sharing of coincident peak, time of day etc. so as to move towards realisation of cost of energy from consumers on the basis of a scientific two-part tariff structure.

The order is signed, dated and issued by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission on the 2nd day of July 2001.

Date: 2nd July 2001 Place: Panchkula

(K.S. CHAUBE) (RAMESH CHANDRA) (V.S. AILAWADI) MEMBER MEMBER CHAIRMAN

Page 28 of 28 ANNEXURE

LIST OF PERSONS/ORGANIZATIONS WHO FILED OBJECTIONS ALONG WITH AFFIDAVITS.

1. M/s Injecto Limited, 20/5, Mathura Road, Faridabad 2. M/s Tractel Tirfor India Pvt. Ltd., 14/6, Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Faridabad 3. M/s Alloy Cast Private Limited, Plot No. 59, Sector 6, Faridabad. 4. M/s Star Wire (India) Limited, A-11, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi. 5. M/s Xilxpro India Limited, Coex Division, Plot 2-3, Ind. Area, N.I.T. Faridabad. 6. M/s United Oil Mill Machinery & Spares in Private Limited, 39KM, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh (Haryana) 7. M/s Uttam Fabricators, Plot No. 1, Unchagaon Road, Ballabgarh. 8. M/s Prakant Electronics Private Limited, 5B, Sanjay Memorial Industrial Estate 20/2, Mathura Road, Faridabad 9. M/s A. R. Industries Pvt. Limited, 14/6, Mathura Road, Faridabad. 10. M/s K. & Jai Enterprises, B-1, Sanjay Memorial Industrial Estatem 20/2, Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Faridabad 11. M/s Nationale Air Products, A-21/17, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi 12. M/s R. B. Industries, Plot No. 159, Sector 25, Faridabad. 13. Sh. Arun Bajaj, Plot no. 170, Sector –24, Faridabad. 14. M/s Niranjan Industries, Plot No 170, Sector 24, Faridabad 15. M/s Lauls Limited, 33-B, N.I.T., Faridabad 16. M/s Friends Auto (India) Limited, 38-A, Industrial Area, Faridabad 17. M/s Reliance Forge, Plot No. 1,2, Dabua Pali Road, Faridabad 18. M/s Faridabad Industries Association, FIA House, Bata Chowk, Industrial Area, Faridabad 19. M/s Faridabad Chamber of Commerce and industries, FCCI Centre, Near Tube Well No. 4, Sector 11 –B, Faridabad

20. M/s Fiber Line India Limited, 149, DLF Industrial Area, Phase I, Faridabad. 21. M/s Astron Rubbers Pvt. Ltd., B 475-476, Ist Floor, Nehru Ground, N.I.T., Faridabad 22. M/s Belmarks Private Limited, Plot No. 125, Sector 24, Faridabad 23. M/s Anuja Industrial Rubbers, B- 475-476, Ist Floor, Nehru Ground, N.I.T., Faridabad 24. M/s Faridabad Industries Association, FIA House, Bata Chowk, Industrial Area, Faridabad 25. M/s Faridabad Industries Association, FIA House, Bata Chowk, Industrial Area, Faridabad 26. M/s Faridabad Industries Association, FIA House, Bata Chowk, Industrial Area, Faridabad 27. M/s J/ B/ Springs, Niasen Hut, Plot No. 1-C/43, N.I.T., Faridabad 28. M/s Woodward Governor India Private Limited, 23/6, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh 29. M/s Delhi Agencies & Investment Private Limited, 22-B, Industrial Area, Faridabad 30. M/s K-Streetlite Electric Corporation, 55 Industrial Area, Faridabad 31. M/s Sunder Service Station, Bata Chowk, N.I. T., Faridabad 32. M/s Bupender Steels Limited, Plot No. 25, Sector 6, Faridabad 33. M/s Rajat Wires Pvt. Limited, Plot No. 262 – J, sector 24, Faridabad 34. M/s Gopal Sons Auto Pvt. Ltd., Sector 15-A, Ajronda, Faridabad 35. M/s P.R, Packaging Ltd., Plot No. 12, Sector 4, Faridabad 36. M/s Goyaal Industrial Corporation, 14/5, Mathura Road, Faridabad 37. M/s Satyam Shivam & Co., 14/5, Mathura Road, Faridabad 38. M/s Auto Pins India Limited, 16, Industrial Area, N.I.T., Faridabad 39. M/s J. V. Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 163-164, Sector 24, Faridabad 40. M/s Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) Ltd., 262-M, Sector 24, Faridabad 41. M/s Guru Nanak Industrias, Plot No. CP 6 & 7, NH-5, Railway Road, Faridabad.

42. M/s Techno Fab Engineering Ltd., Plot No. 5, Sector 27 C, Mathura Road, Faridabad 43. M/s Grand Prix Fab Pvt. Ltd., Plot 82, Sector 25, Faridabad 44. M/s Unimax Laboratories, Plot No. 7, Sector 24, Faridabad 45. M/s Vikas Forgings Pvt. Ltd., 173, Sector 24, Faridabad 46. M/s The Chemicals of India, Plot No. 36, Sector 27 C, Faridabad 47. M/s Sadhu Forging Ltd., Plot No. 140, sector 24, Faridabad 48. M/s Thermo Steel Enterprises, 7B, New Industrial Area, Faridabad 49. M/s Savvy Net Work, Plot No. 5B, Sanjay Memorial Industrial Estate, 20/2, Mathura Road, Faridabad 50. M/s Brassoforge, Plot No. 35 A, Aerodrum Road, Jawaher Colony, Faridabad 51. M/s B.L. Containers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 87/95, Sector 24, Faridabad 52. M/s Kwick Fit (India), 37, Industrial Area, Faridabad 53. M/s Bajaj Insulation, Plot No. 170, Sector 24, Faridabad 54. M/s Shree Bhikshu Components Pvt. Ltd, 384, Sector 24, Faridabad 55. M/s Bajaj Nylon & Plastics, Plots No. 170, Sector 24, Faridabad 56. M/s Haryana United Tools India Pvt. Ltd, Plot No 8, S.M.I.E. 20/2.hura Road, Faridabad 57. M/s Bharat Industrial Corporation, Plot No. 98, Sector 25, Industrial Area, Ballabgarh 58. M/s Prem Metal Industries Engineers & Founders, 6, Industrial Area, Faridabad 59. M/s Precision Castings, 14/5, Milestone, Mathura Road, Faridabad 60. M/s Shree Bhikhu Packagings Pvt. Ltd, Shed No. 276 C, HSIDC, Sector 59, Faridabad 61. M/s Jindal Strips Limited, Post Box No. 6, Delhi Road, Hissar 62. M/s Bharat Electronics Ltd., 405, Industrial Ares, Phase III, Panchkula 63. M/s Indus Casting Company, Plot No. 105, DLF, Industrial Area, Faridabad 64. M/s Kundli Industries Association, 134, HSIDC Industrial Estate, Kundli, Distt. Sonipat

65. M/s Prashadamal Mukundilal Rice Sheller, Vill. Nasirpur, Hissar Road, Ambala City 66. M/s Pioneer Refractories Company, 12/2, Mathura Road, Faridabad 67. M/s Sarvottam Pumps Limited,316, Sector 24, Faridabad 68. M/s tool Maker & Associates, Plot No. 294, Sector 24, Faridabad 69. M/s J. B. Gupta & Sons, 13/1, Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Faridabad 70. M/s Manufacturers Association Faridabad, Plot No. 316, Sector 24, Faridabad 71. M/s Premier Iron & Alloy Steel Company, Plot No. 161, Secttor 25, Faridabad 72. M/s Ad-Mach Auto Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 166, Sector – 25, Faridabad 73. M/s techno Spring Industries, 389, Sector – 24, Faridabad 74. M/s R.B. Industries , Plot No. 159, Sector – 25, Faridabad 75. M/s Diamond Auto Industries, 3C/62, BP, NIT, Faridabad 76. M/s Alcon India, Plot No. 41, Sector – 6, Industrial Estate, Faridabad 77. M/s Bajwa Appliances Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 24, Sector – 4, Faridabad 78. M/s The Printers House Limited, 22/1, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh 79. M/s Delton Cables Ltd., 17/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad 80. M/s Bansal Brothers, Plot No. 35, Sector – 4, Faridabad 81. M/s Techno Engineering Works, 41-F, Industrial Area, NIT, Faridabad 82. M/s C. Lal Alloys (P) Ltd., 44th KM Stone, Delhi – Mathura Highway, Village Softa, Faridabad 83. M/s True Forge Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 157, Sector – 25, Faridabad 84. M/s Maruti Engineering Industries, A-18, DLF, Industrial Area – 1, Faridabad. 85. Sh. Rakesh Chanda C/o M/s Ace Wheels Pvt. Ltd., Mujesar Road, Faridabad 86. M/s Ace Wheels Pvt. Ltd., Mujesar Road, Faridabad 87. M/s Ruby Auto Industries, 1-E/2 & 3, SSI Plot NIT, Faridabad 88. M/s Alfa Polymer Industries, 30-A, Sector – 5, Industrial Area 20/2, Mathura Road, Faridabad

89. M/s Polytech Industries,1E/2 & 3, SSI Plots, NIT Faridabad 90. M/s Indo Indo Industrial Engineers, 337, Sector – 24, Faridabad 91. M/s S.M. Engineering Works, C-30B, Nehru Ground, NIT Faridabad 92. M/s Pioneer Refractories Company, 12//2, Mathura Road, Faridabad 93. M/s Adarsh Fabricators, Plot No.212, Sector – 24, Faridabad 94. M/s Standard Fabricators, Plot No. 212, Sector – 24, Faridabad 95. M/s Industrial Casting Corporation, Plot No. 247, Sector – 24, Faridabad 96. M/s ShilPee, Plot No. 247, Sector – 24, Faridabad 97. M/s Ameteep machine Tools Private Ltd., 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad 98. M/s Derma Care India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.8, New DLF, Industrial Area, Faridabad 99. M/s P.I. Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., 141-DLF, Industrial Area, Mathura Road, Faridabad 100. M/s Aggarwal Foundary & Engineering works, Plot No. 12, Sector – 24, Faridabad 101. M/s Bector Engineers, C-3, Nehru Ground, Faridabad 102. M/s Bhogals, 26, DLF, Industrial Area No. 1, 14th Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Faridabad 103. M/s New Hindustan Tubes Pvt. Ltd., P. Box 415, Sohna Road, Near Railway Crossing, Ballabgarh, 104. M/s Hi-Tech Agro projects Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 70, Sector – 6, Faridabad 105. M/s Bhartiya Valves (P) Ltd., 1-18, DLF Industrial Estate No. 1, Mathura Road, Faridabad 106. M/s Hi-Lift Pumps India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 6, Industrial Area, Samaypur Road, Opp. Sector – 25, Faridabad 107. M/s EP Electro Pressings Pvt. Ltd., 238, Sector – 24, Faridabad 108. M/s K.B. Hydraulic Engineering Works (Regd.), 284, Sector – 24, Faridabad 109. Shree Balaji Refractories Company, Plot No. 47, Sector – 25, Ballabgarh, Faridabad 110. M/S Multitec Aids Private Ltd. 200, Sector – 24, Faridabad

111. M/s Mahinder Singh and Associates, Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, 15/3, Delhi Mathura Road, Faridabad 112. M/s Rama Krishna Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 185, Sector – 24, Faridabad 113. M/s Sarin & Associates, Plot No. 37, Sector – 24, Faridabad 114. M/s Jai Raj Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd, 3-B-23, B.P., N.I.T., Faridabad 115. Champion Engg. Works, Plot No. 25, Sector 24, Faridabad 116. M/s Jay Bharat Exhaust System Limited, 118, Sector 59, Ballabgarh 117. M/s Associated Engineers, 29-30A, Sanjay Colony, sector 22, Faridabad 118. M/s Bharat Metals, 10th KM Stone, Delhi Road, Hissar 119. M/s Small Industries Association, FSIA Park Opp. Plot No. 23, Sector 24, Faridabad 120. M/s Small Industries Association, FSIA Park Opp. Plot No. 23, Sector 24, Faridabad 121. Sh. Karam Vir Arya, Plot No. 233, Phase II, Industrial Area, Panchkula 122. M/s Himanshu Heat Treatment, Plot No. 4, Jeevan Colony, Vill Gonchi, Faridabad 123. M/s Bhatia Alloy Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Khasara No. 44/11/12, Airforce Road, Jawahar colony, N.I.T., Faridabad 124. M/s Frick India Ltd., 21.5 K.m, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad 125. M/s Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd, Plot No. 29, Sector 6, Faridabad 126. M/s Aristocraft International Pvt. Ltd., 138 DLF, Industrial Estate –1, Mathura Road, Faridabad 127. M/s Elofic Industries Ltd., 14/4, Mathura Road, PO Box 335, Faridabad 128. M/s Punjab General Industries Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 149-150, sector 24, Faridabad 129. M/s SPL Industries Ltd., Plot No. 21, sector 6, Faridabad 130. M/s Gurera Gas Cylinders Ltd., Plot no. 133, Sector 24, Faridabd 131. M/s J.B. M. Tools Ltd., Plot No. 133, Sector 24, Faridabad 132. M/s Super Parts Ltd., 14/1, Mathura Road, PO Amar Nagar, Faridabad 133. M/s Anil Rubber Mills Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 30, Sector 6, Faridabad 134. M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd., 12/4, Delhi Mathura Road, Faridabad 135. M/s K.K. Kohli & Brothers Pvt. Ltd., 14/5, Mathura Road, Faridabad

136. M/s K.K.K. Textiles Ltd., 46,DLF Industrial Area, Phase I, Faridabad 137. M/s Ruchika Engineering Pvt. Ltd., 46.Industrial Estate, Sector 6, Faridabad 138. M/s Asian Components Pvt. Ltd., 64, Industrial Estate, Sector 6, Faridabad 139. M/s Super Alloy Cast, Plot No. 62, Sector 6, Faridabad 140. M/s Unisystem Pvt. Ltd., 15/1, Mathura Road, Faridabad 141. M/s Gallium Industries Ltd., Plot No. 117, Sector 59, Faridabad 142. M/s Hndustan Wires Ltd, Plot No. 267-268, Sector 24, Faridabad 143. M/s Dalmia Electronics Corporation, 23rd Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, Haryana 144. M/s HighPolymer Labs Ltd., Vill Dudhola, Prithla-Datir Road, Tehsil- Palwal, Distt. Faridabad Haryana 145. M/s Venus Industrial Corporation Ltd., Plot No. 197, Sector 24, Faridabad 146. M/s Venus Industrial Corporation Ltd., Plot No. 262 G&H, Sector 24, Faridabad 147. M/s Venus Industrial Corporation Ltd., Plot No. 91, Sector 25, Faridabad 148. M/s Venus Industrial Corporation Ltd., Plot No. 29 & 30, (E.H.T.P.), Sector 34, Gurgaon 149. M/s Venus Industrial Corporation Ltd., Plot No. 179, Sector 24, Faridabad 150. M/s Shivani Locks Limited, Plot No. 58-59 & 60, Sector 27 A, Faridabad 151. M/s Shivani Locks Limited, 14/6, Mathura Road, Faridabad 152. M/s Praja Mechanicals Limited, Plot No. 137, Sector 25, Ballabgarh. 153. M/s Surbhi Engineers Ltd., Plot No. 318, Sector 24, Faridabad 154. M/s Mujessar Veopar Mandal, Shop No. 7, Main Road, Mujessar, Near Shiv Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Opp Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd., Sector 24, Faridabad 155. M/s Abhi Enterprises, Plot No. 1A, New Colony, Opp. Rly. Goods Shed, Main Rly. Road, Faridabad 156. M/s Goyal Steel, 2J/51, B.P. Faridabad N.I.T. 157. M/s Verma Die Castings, Plot No. 140, Sector 6, Ind. Area, Faridabad 158. M/s Competent Forgings Limited, 2J/51, B.P. Faridabad, N.I.T.

159. M/s Shanker Forge Pvt. Limited, Plot No. 132 & 139, Sector 6, Faridabad 160. M/s Rubicon Steels, Plot No. 149, Sector 25, Faridabad 161. M/s Industrial Ceramic Products, Plot No. 41, Sector 25, Ballabgarh, Faridabad 162. M/s Continental Refractories, Plot No. 42, Sector 25, Ballabgarh 163. M/s S. M. Engineering Works, E-22, Sanjay Colony, Sector 23, Faridabad 164. M/s Bright Metal Industries, Super Diesel Building, Railway Road, Faridabad 165. M/s Ess Kay Metal Works, Plot No. 5, Fruit Garden, NH –5, Faridabad 166. M/s Chintamani Metal Udyog Pvt. Ltd, 14/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad 167. M/s Polar Auto & Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd, 132, DLF Industrial Area, Mathura Road, Faridabad 168. M/s Double ESS K Enterprises, 24B/10, Industrial Area, N.I.T., Faridabad (Haryana). 169. M/s Deepshikha Stampings, 77, Sanjay Memorial Industrial Estate, 20/2, Mathura Road, Faridabad. 170. M/s Leading Steel, 222, Sector 24, Faridabad. 171. M/s Metal Processing & Engg. Works, 20/2, Mathura Road, Faridabad. 172. Sh. K.P.Garg Proprietor of M/s Bright Metal Industries, 5, Fruit Garden, NH-5, Faridabad. 173. M/s Super Auto Electrical Private Limited, Plot No. 9-J, Sector 6, Faridabad. 174. M/s Faridabad Industrial Automation Co. Pvt., Ltd., E-107, Sanjay Colony, Sector – 23, Faridabad. 175. M/s Elkay telelinks Ltd., Plot no. 141, Sector – 24, Faridabad. 176. M/s Faridabad Chamber of Commerce & Industry, FCCI Centre, Near Tube Well No. 4, Sector – 11B, Faridabad. 177. M/s High Polymer Labs Limited, Plot No. 6-8, Sector 25, Faridabad. 178. M/s Fibre Glass Limited, 60, DLF Industrial Area, Phase I, Faridabad. 179. M/s Stead Fast Engineers 16/2, Mathura Road, Faridabad. 180. M/s D.K.Consultants, Plot No. 19-20, SSI, Karkhana Bagh, Faridabad.