
Haryana's two state-owned power distribution companies, DHBVN and UHBVN, have jointly filed a review petition before the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC), seeking reconsideration of its October 19 order that granted a 25-year parallel electricity distribution licence to Eleven Power Private Limited for Gurugram and Nuh.
The petition, filed on 3 November, argues that HERC relied on investment estimates submitted by the private company instead of conducting an independent assessment, and raises questions about the applicant's financial capacity, beneficial ownership of shares, and the technical experience of its consortium partners. The original order had triggered a three-day strike by power department unions in October, leading to widespread blackouts, which ended after Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini assured employees that private players would not enter the sector. The government subsequently directed HERC under Section 108(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, not to operationalise any parallel distribution licence. HERC stalled further proceedings on 28 October but did not revoke the original grant. The review petition seeks to address the original order before it can become operative again if the government directives are withdrawn. Eleven Power has said it will pursue legal remedies against the stalling.
Both outlets neutrally report the joint review petition filed by Haryana's state discoms and the ongoing legal manoeuvres around Eleven Power's parallel distribution licence. Hindustan Times leads with the discoms' stated rationale, that the October 28 order only stalled the licence without setting aside the original grant, and quotes a senior DHBVN official on the risk of the licence reviving if the government withdraws its directions. The Times of India leads with the petition’s challenge to HERC's reliance on Eleven Power’s own investment estimates and also gives space to Eleven Power’s stated plan to pursue legal remedies. Both note the unresolved question of how HERC will handle a review petition while the Section 108 directions remain in force, but Hindustan Times alone reports the engineers' unions' separate caveat before APTEL and their warning of another protest. The coverage is straight reporting with no discernible slant, differing only in the details each chooses to foreground.
Coverage: 2 sources, 2 neutral
Sources (2): hindustantimes.com (neutral report), timesofindia.indiatimes.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.