Connectivity extension for 72.6 MW was granted subject to payment of accrued compensation.

Serentica Renewables India 4 Pvt. Ltd. (“SRI4PL”) proposed a 200 MW wind-power project at Kallam, Maharashtra, and applied for connectivity with a proposed start date and SCOD of 1 July 2024. After transition to the Connectivity and General Network Access Regulations, 2022 (“GNA Regulations”), CTUIL granted connectivity for 200 MW at Kallam Sub-station, subject to transmission-system augmentation.

CTUIL subsequently initiated revocation proceedings on the ground that the project had not been commissioned within the period prescribed under Regulation 24.6(1)(a)(ii) of the GNA Regulations.

SRI4PL challenged the proposed revocation before CERC and sought extension of connectivity, relying upon alleged force-majeure and other uncontrollable events, including delays in statutory approvals, exceptional rainfall, delayed PTCC approvals, right-of-way disputes, theft and vandalism.

By its order dated 2 March 2026, CERC relaxed the applicable regulatory requirements and permitted retention of connectivity, subject to an escalating compensation mechanism and a maximum extension of fifteen months from 1 July 2025, ending on 30 September 2026.

SRI4PL filed the present appeal and interlocutory application seeking, inter alia, stay of the compensation and demand notice, protection against revocation, and extension of connectivity until commissioning.

At the interim stage, SRI4PL submitted that approximately 102.3 MW had been commissioned and that an additional 72.6 MW, for which First Time Charging (“FTC”) approvals had been obtained, was expected to be commissioned by December 2026.

CTUIL opposed further unconditional extension and contended that compensation remained payable for retention of scarce connectivity capacity.

1. Whether SRI4PL had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience for protection against revocation of connectivity after 30 September 2026, particularly in respect of the 72.6 MW capacity for which FTC approval had been obtained?

2. Whether the operation of CERC’s compensation mechanism and the demand for payment ought to be stayed at the interim stage?

3. Whether the SCOD should be further extended beyond 30 September 2026, and if so, on what terms?

The Tribunal applied Rule 30 of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Procedure, Form, Fee, and Record of Proceedings) Rules, 2007, governing interim relief.

Regulation 24.6(1)(a)(ii) of the GNA Regulations requires revocation of connectivity upon failure to commission within the prescribed timeline, while Regulations 41 and 42 empower CERC to relax regulatory requirements and remove difficulties in appropriate cases.

The Tribunal applied the established interim-relief principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and preservation of the subject matter pending final adjudication.

It further recognized that retention of connectivity, being a scarce transmission resource, may be made conditional upon compensation, and that the legality and quantum of such compensation could be finally determined only after detailed consideration in the main appeal.

The Tribunal declined to stay the impugned order on the ground that CERC had already considered the alleged force-majeure circumstances and had granted a substantial extension from the original revocation date, together with a further fifteen-month period up to 30 September 2026.

SRI4PL’s own projected commissioning timeline and the advanced stage of the project supported CERC’s decision not to grant an unconditional or indefinite extension.

However, the subsequent evidence concerning theft, vandalism, FTC approval, and readiness of 72.6 MW demonstrated a prima facie basis for limited interim protection.

The Tribunal considered that immediate revocation could prejudice commissioning of capacity that was expected to become operational by December 2026, and that the balance of convenience therefore favoured a short extension.

The Tribunal rejected interim interference with the compensation mechanism because CERC had imposed it as the price for continued retention of scarce connectivity beyond the regulatory timeline, and the issue required detailed examination of the Regulations and the parties’ competing submissions at final hearing.

Nevertheless, without finally determining the precise amount payable, it relied on SRI4PL’s stated potential liability and directed payment of the balance amount identified by the Tribunal as Rs. 9,17,50,000 as a condition for continued protection.

It extended the SCOD from 30 September 2026 to 31 December 2026, but only for the 72.6 MW capacity for which FTC approval had been obtained.

The extension was conditional upon SRI4PL paying Rs. 9,17,50,000 to CTUIL within two weeks of the order.

In default, CTUIL was permitted to revoke connectivity for the portion of the 72.6 MW capacity that remained uncommissioned.

Compensation payable for the extended period, as well as amounts already paid or directed to be paid, was made subject to the final outcome of the appeal.

The Tribunal did not stay CERC’s compensation methodology or finally decide the parties’ substantive contentions, leaving them open for determination in the main appeal.