Absence of Urgency and Party Acquiescence Preclude Grant of Equitable Relief for Interim Stay

The Appellant challenged a Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) order dated December 30, 2021, which condoned a 119-day delay in commissioning a 20 MW solar project by the 1st Respondent and upheld a tariff of Rs. 4.97/kWh.

The Appellant initially complied with the order, paying over Rs. 9.60 crores in differential tariff in November 2022.

Seven months later, the Appellant filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on April 15, 2024, with a 10-week temporary stay granted to allow for filing an appeal.

The Appellant filed the instant appeal on July 22, 2024, after the High Court's stay had expired, and subsequently sought interim relief to stay the operation of the original KERC order.

Whether the Appellant is entitled to an interim stay of the impugned order despite significant procedural delays and partial compliance.

The Tribunal applied the equitable principle Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (law helps those who are awake, not those who sleep on their rights), which mandates that a party seeking interim stay must approach the court expeditiously.

The granting of an interim stay is governed by three essential factors: (i) the existence of a prima facie case, (ii) the likelihood of irretrievable loss, and (ii) the balance of convenience. This relief is discretionary and equitable in nature, meaning it can be denied if the applicant’s conduct suggests acquiescence or lack of urgency.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant’s conduct was "lackadaisical," noting they waited over 1.5 years to challenge the order and even made payments under it, which indicated acquiescence to the KERC decision.

Although the Tribunal acknowledged the Appellant had a prima facie case on the merits, it held that the other two pillars for interim relief were missing.

Specifically, there was no "irretrievable loss" because the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) is valid until 2041, allowing the Appellant ample time to recover funds from future payments to the Respondent if they eventually succeed in the main appeal.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the Commission’s reasoning regarding delays in evacuation approval and land allocation to be prima facie sound, further tilting the balance of convenience in favor of the Respondent.

It held that while the appeal's delay had been condoned previously, the Appellant failed to demonstrate the urgency or potential for irreparable harm required for equitable relief. The main Appeal (No. 481 of 2024) was directed to be included in the "List of Finals" for disposal on merits.