Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd & Anr vs Aavanti Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

COURT-1
IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
IA No. 1260 OF 2024 in Appeal No. 481 OF 2024
(for interim relief)
th
Dated: 20 May, 2026
Present : Hon`ble Ms. Seema Gupta, Officiating Chairperson
Hon`ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member
In the matter of:
Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd & Anr. .... Appellant(s)
Versus
Aavanti Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .... Respondent(s)

Counsel on record for the Appellant(s) : S. Sriranga Subbana, Sr. Adv.
Sumana Naganand
Garima Jain
Tushar Kanti Mohindroo
Arnav Khanna
Nidhi Gupta
for App. 1

Sumana Naganand
Garima Jain
Tushar Kanti Mohindroo
Arnav Khanna
Nidhi Gupta
for App. 2

Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Sr. Adv.
Prerna Priyadarshini
Kush Chaturvedi
Syed Faraz Alam
Atharva Gaur
Aayushman Aggarwal
for Res. 1

Samarth Kashyap
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA No. 1260 of 2024 in Appeal No. 481 of 2024 Page 1 of 6

Rahul K Shaji
for Res. 2
ORDER
PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The Appellant, by way of this application, is seeking stay of the
th rd
operation of impugned order dated 30 December, 2021 passed by the 3
Respondent – Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter
st
referred to as “the Commission”) in petition filed by the 1 Respondent, a
power generator, thereby condoning the delay of 119 days in commissioning
st
of the 20 MW solar power project of 1 Respondent and holding it entitled to
tariff of Rs.4.97/kWh as agreed in the Power Purchase Agreement (in short
“PPA”) executed by it with the Appellant.
2. We have heard the Learned counsels for the parties and have perused
the impugned order.
3. It appears that initially the Appellant did not form any intention to assail
the said order of the commission and allowed it to remain in operation for
more than 1.5 years. The Appellant even paid an amount of Rs.9,60,52,690/-
st
to the 1 Respondent towards differential tariff (i.e. PPA tariff of Rs.4.97/ unit
and generic tariff of Rs.4.36/ unit) for the period from February, 2018 to
th
September, 2022 on 28 November, 2022. Thereafter, the appellant
challenged the impugned order by way of a writ petition before the Karnataka
High Court on 30.06.2023 wherein it was stayed vide order dated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA No. 1260 of 2024 in Appeal No. 481 of 2024 Page 2 of 6

24.07.2023. Thus, the impugned order remained in operation for about one
year and seven months.
4. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, at the request of the
Appellant on 15.04.2024. However, the stay of the impugned order granted
by the High Court was directed to remain effective for a period of 10 weeks
from the date of disposal of the writ petition i.e. upto 24.06.2024. The instant
appeal came to file by the Appellant on 22.07.2024 i.e. about a month after
the stay granted by the Karnataka High Court expired.
5. The Appellant has, thus, exhibited a very lackadaisical conduct in
assailing the impugned order. At first, the Appellant accepted the impugned
order as it did not challenge it for about one year & seven months and even
made the payment of differential amount to the first respondent. When the
Appellant woke up from slumber in June, 2023 it chose wrong forum/court
i.e. Karnataka High Court to assail the order. The High Court, though,
granted stay of the impugned order and directed it to remain effective for 10
weeks even after the disposal of the writ petition, the Appellant did not
approach this Tribunal with the said period of 10 weeks and allowed the stay
to expire.
6. Even after filing of the instant appeal in this Tribunal on 22.07.2024,
the Appellant did not show any urgency due to which the interim application
under disposal has remained pending for about two years. Perusal of the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA No. 1260 of 2024 in Appeal No. 481 of 2024 Page 3 of 6

order sheets would reveal that adjournments have been sought regularly
sometimes by both the parties and on several date by the Appellant.
7. It is a settled principle of equity that a party seeking interim stay must
approach the court expeditiously without any undue delay. Latin phrase
“ Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt ” (law helps those who are
awake, not those who sleep on their rights) indicates that interim stay, being
in the nature of equitable relief, cannot be granted to a party who does not
show any urgency and commits delay in approaching the appropriate forum.
Once a party waits for months altogether and even complies with the
impugned order, even though partly, it can be fairly assumed that there was
no real urgency or ground for assailing the order in question. Delay suggests
that the party concerned has acquiesced to the situation created by the
impugned order and granting of stay now would unfairly prejudice the other
side.
8. It is true that the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned in this
case by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2024 but that has no relevance
while considering whether or not is the Appellant entitled to interim stay as
sought in the application at hand and would not tilt the balance of
convenience in favour of the Appellant.
9. Considering the above noted conduct of the Appellant, it is limpid that
no irretrievable loss would be suffered by it in case the impugned order is
not stayed and the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the first
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA No. 1260 of 2024 in Appeal No. 481 of 2024 Page 4 of 6

respondent even though upon taking note of the grounds raised in the
appeal, the Appellant appears to have made out a prima facie case in its
favour. Existence of prima facie case alone is not sufficient for passing an
interim stay order when it is held that the other two factors to be considered
i.e. likelihood of irretrievable loss and balance of convenience are not in
favour of the Applicant/Appellant.
10. We may also note that the PPA between the Appellant and first
Respondent is valid for 25 years i.e. till the year 2041. During this period, the
st
1 Respondent is bound to supply entire power generated in the power
project to the Appellant and therefore, the Appellant would have enough time
period to recover the differential tariff from first Respondent in case it
succeeds in the appeal.
11. Despite these observations and findings, we have perused the
st
impugned order minutely. The 1 Respondent had sought extension of
Scheduled Commissioning Date (SCOD) of the power project on account of
following Force Majeure events :-
(a) Introduction of GST (62 days)
(b) Delay in signing supplementary PPA (96 days)
(c) Delay in issuing evacuation approval (274 days)
(d) Delay in granting land for bay allocation (203 days)
12. The Commission has held against the first respondent on (a) & (b)
whereas it has condoned the delay on account of (c) & (d). We have gone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA No. 1260 of 2024 in Appeal No. 481 of 2024 Page 5 of 6

through the reasoning given by the Commission in the impugned order for
condoning the delay on account of (c) & (d) and prima facie concur with the
same. We refrain from giving detailed reasons for concurring with findings
of the Commission on (c) & (d) lest it shall prejudice the case of any of the
parties at the time of final disposal.
13. Hence, in view of above discussion, no case for stay of the impugned
order has been made out by the Appellant. Accordingly, the interim
application is hereby dismissed.
14. Nothing said and observed herein above shall be considered as our
opinion on the merits of the case which would be seen at the time of final
disposal of the appeal.
Appeal No. 481 OF 2024
15. Pleadings are already complete. Registry is directed to include the
matter in the “List of Finals” to be taken from there on its turn.
th
Pronounced in the open court on this 20 of May, 2026.



Virender Bhat
Judicial Member
Seema Gupta

Officiating Chairperson
✓
REPORTABLE / NON REPORTABLE

js
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA No. 1260 of 2024 in Appeal No. 481 of 2024 Page 6 of 6