Interim Stay Denied Where Undue Delay and Acquiescence Negate Claims of Irretrievable Loss

The Appellant (BESCOM) sought a stay on a Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) order dated December 30, 2021, which condoned a 114-day delay in commissioning a 20 MW solar project by Respondent No. 1 and upheld a tariff of Rs. 5.07/kWh

The Appellant did not challenge the order for over 1.5 years and paid differential tariffs amounting to over Rs. 1.14 Crores in November 2022

A subsequent Writ Petition filed before the Karnataka High Court in June 2023 was dismissed as withdrawn in April 2024 without obtaining a stay

The present appeal was filed in July 2024, nearly three years after the original order

1. Whether the Appellant has satisfied the legal requirements of balance of convenience and irretrievable loss to warrant an interim stay on the KERC order

2. Whether the Appellant’s conduct, characterized by significant delay and partial compliance, precludes it from seeking equitable relief

The Tribunal applied the equitable maxim Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights) to assess the entitlement to interim relief

It relied on established principles governing interlocutory injunctions, which require the concurrent existence of three factors: a prima facie case, balance of convenience in favor of the applicant, and likelihood of irretrievable loss

condonation of delay in filing an appeal (procedural) does not automatically entitle a party to a stay (substantive relief)

The Tribunal observed that while the Appellant might have a prima facie case, its "lackadaisical conduct" and "slumber" for 1.7 years before challenging the order suggested acquiescence

By paying the differential tariff and failing to secure a stay from the High Court, the Appellant demonstrated a lack of urgency

The Tribunal determined that the balance of convenience favored the Respondent because the PPA remains valid until 2041, providing ample time for the Appellant to recover payments through future adjustments should they succeed on merits

Regarding the merits of the delay condonation, the Tribunal found the Commission’s reasoning for condoning delays due to evacuation approvals to be prima facie sound

The Tribunal held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate irretrievable loss or that the balance of convenience lay in its favor

The main appeal was directed to be included in the "List of Finals" for adjudication