Delhi High Court - Orders
Harvinder Singh Basra vs Delhi Electricity Regulatory ... on 12 March, 2026
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CM APPL. 15066/2026
IN
+ W.P.(C) 3470/2024
HARVINDER SINGH BASRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Dubey, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Tushar Jain, Mr. Pradeep
Singhal, Mr. Shah Rukh Khan and
Ms. Tanya Verma, Advocates.
versus
DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. B.P. Agarwal, Advocate.
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and
Ms. Nuha Rahman, Advocates for
TPDDL.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 12.03.2026 CM APPL. 15066/2026
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, i.e. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC), in a disposed of writ petition.
2. The writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:-
W.P.(C) 3470/2024 Page 1 of 5This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 21:02:05
3. Vide order dated 13th January 2025, the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:-
"2. Mr. Prashant Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission ('DERC'), on instructions, submits that the answering Respondent was unable to pass tariff orders on account of an undertaking given to the Division Bench of this Court on 01.06.2023 and 14.07.2023 in a batch of writ petitions, one of them being W.P. (C) No. 3573/2020. However, subsequently, applications were filed by DERC seeking permission to withdraw the undertakings and by an order dated 17.12.2024, the Division Bench has relieved DERC from the undertaking and observed that it shall be open to DERC to proceed in accordance with law and pass tariff orders as well as take such further consequential action as may be warranted and therefore, in view of the said order, DERC shall now proceed to pass the tariff orders. On instructions, Mr. Mehta further submits that due to the undertaking followed by the absence of the Chairman of DERC for a brief period, there has been a backlog of work and therefore, the True Up orders for Financial Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 as well as tariff order for the Financial Year 2025-26 will be passed by the end of May, 2025.
3. In view of the above assurance of DERC, no further order is required to be passed in the present writ petition. Needless to state, Petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to legal remedies in case of any surviving grievance."
4. In terms of the aforesaid order, the applicant/respondent no.3 had assured this Court that True Up Orders for the Financial Years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 and the Tariff Order for the Financial Year 2025-2026 will be passed by the end of May, 2025.
W.P.(C) 3470/2024 Page 2 of 5This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 21:02:05
5. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant/respondent no.3 that True Up orders for the Financial Years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 have been passed, however, the Tariff Order for the Financial Year 2025-2026 has not been passed. Hence, the present application has been filed to dispense the respondent Commission from the undertaking given by them to this Court insofar as passing of the Tariff Order for FY 2025-26 is concerned.
6. On behalf of the applicant/respondent no.3, an explanation has been given in paragraphs 24 to 31 of the present application as to why the undertaking could not be complied with. The reasons given for seeking dispensation are that on 13th January 2025, when the undertaking was given, the Commission had a Chairman, being a retired Judge of this Court, who continued till 7th March, 2025. The post of the Chairman remained vacant from 8th March 2025 to 23rd March 2025. Thereafter, a new Chairman took over. The said Chairman remained in the office till 7th July, 2025. It is also stated that the respondent no.3 Commission was performing various other statutory functions, which prevented it from issuing the tariff order.
7. From the submissions noted above, it is clear that the absence of the Chairman was only for a limited period of 15 days. The explanation offered on behalf of the applicant/respondent no.3 that the tariff order could not be issued till May, 2025 since the applicant Commission did not have a Chairman is completely misconceived.
8. Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 24 to 31 of the present application. In my view, the explanation provided in the said paragraphs for not complying with the undertaking is unsatisfactory and does not absolve the applicant/respondent no.3 from complying with the same after the writ petition has been disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3470/2024 Page 3 of 5This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 21:02:05
9. Counsel appearing on advance notice on behalf of the petitioner submits that a contempt petition, being CONT. CAS.(C) 1595/2025 was filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which a detailed order was passed on 18th February, 2026.
9.1. Copy of the said order has been handed over in Court and the same is taken on record.
10. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid order are set out below:
"3. It is quite incongruous and disconcerting that the financial year 2025-26 is nearing completion, and DERC has not even been able to finalise the Tariff Order. The practice of retrospectively finalising tariffs for financial years that have already passed inherently creates difficulties for consumers and stakeholders alike.
4. This Court finds it difficult to countenance that the regulator is not able to discharge its statutory responsibilities and pass the Tariff Order/s in a timely manner.
5. The order dated 13.01.2025 records the unequivocal undertaking/ statement that the Tariff Order for the financial year 2025-26 would be passed by the end of May, 2025. Neither has the same been done nor has the regulator moved any application seeking an extension of time. It is evident that the regulator has acted in scant regard of the orders passed by this Court.
6. In the circumstances, this Court is confronted with the difficult situation of having to hold a regulatory body guilty of wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court."
11. It appears that it is only on account of the contempt petition having been filed that the present application has been filed at this belated stage. Once a writ petition has been disposed of on the basis of an undertaking given by a party, the writ petition cannot be revived and the party be relieved from the said undertaking. If the application was bona fide, it ought to have been filed immediately after the order was passed or in and around May, 2025, when the tariff order was to be issued.
W.P.(C) 3470/2024 Page 4 of 5This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 21:02:05
12. I do not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed.
AMIT BANSAL, J MARCH 12, 2026 Vivek/-
W.P.(C) 3470/2024 Page 5 of 5This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 21:02:05