Condonation of Delay Permissible Where Subsequent Interconnected Regulatory Proceedings Justify Deferring Appellate Filing for Substantial Justice

The Appellants, developers of a 300MW solar project, were granted an extension for commissioning until 21.04.2025 by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) via an order dated 25.11.2024. However, the order conditioned this extension on the payment of compensation to Respondent No. 2 (CTUIL) for retaining connectivity.

Aggrieved by the compensation requirement, the Appellants filed a review petition which they later withdrew to pursue a second petition (No. 452/MP/2025) for further extension after CTUIL revoked their connectivity.

Parallelly, they filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court to ensure operationalization of the transmission system.

After the project was commissioned on 25.06.2025 and full connectivity was finally restored on 14.12.2025 following a final CERC order, the Appellants filed this appeal on 12.01.2026. This resulted in a delay of 368 days in filing the appeal.

1. Whether the Appellants demonstrated "sufficient cause" to condone a delay of 368 days in filing the appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The Tribunal applied Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, regarding the limitation period for appeals.

Supreme Court’s interpretation of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as detailed in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. (2025), which mandates a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach to balance technicalities with substantial justice.

The Tribunal considered Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) and Isha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013), which emphasize that delay should be condoned if the applicant’s conduct lacks mala fides and is not characterized by gross negligence.

The Tribunal noted the strict adherence to statutory limitation periods required by Chhattisgarh SEB v. CERC (2010) and State of M.P. v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024).

The Tribunal reasoned that the Appellants were not negligent but were embroiled in a complex "gamut of facts" involving the survival of the project.

The delay was attributed to the Appellants focusing on commissioning the project and securing connectivity through inter-connected proceedings before the CERC and the High Court, which were essential to avoid "irreparable financial and operational harm".

The Tribunal noted that the Appellants had initially sought a review and even paid ₹9.5 crores in compensation to avoid coercive action, proving their bona fides.

It found that the legal position regarding the project's viability only crystallized on 12.12.2025; filing the appeal earlier while connectivity was revoked would have been premature or infructuous.

While acknowledging the 368-day delay, the Tribunal discounted the 60 days spent on the review petition, bringing the effective delay to 308 days, which fell within the Tribunal's discretionary range for condonation to foster justice.

The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay subject to the Appellants paying costs of ₹1,50,000 to Respondent No. 2 (CTUIL) within four weeks, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed as time-barred.