The appeal limitation period runs from restoration of the adverse order.

The appellant’s 1 MW solar project was allotted under a 2014 RFP, and a PPA was executed with PSPCL in 2015.

After the project missed its scheduled commissioning date, the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission refused to extend the date and reduced the tariff by its order dated 14 February 2017.

The Commission later allowed the appellant’s review petition and extended the commissioning date; however, APTEL set aside that review order on 28 August 2024, thereby restoring the 2017 order.

The appellant filed the present appeal against the 2017 order on 7 July 2025 and sought condonation of delay.

The Tribunal separately condoned the delay in refiling

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the Commission’s order dated 14 February 2017 should be reckoned from the date of that order or from 28 August 2024, when APTEL set aside the review order and restored it

2. Whether the delay, reckoned from 28 August 2024, should be condoned despite the appellant’s explanation being challenged as insufficient by the respondents

The Tribunal applied the principle that delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown, while considering whether the delay was deliberate or contumacious.

It noted its consistent practice of condoning delays of up to one year in filing appeals, ordinarily subject to costs, to avoid denying litigants an opportunity to have a statutory first appeal decided on its merits.

The respondents relied on P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556; Baswaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Kumar Chaudhary, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612; and Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, (1975) 1 SCC 774, in support of their opposition to condonation.

The Tribunal did not set out or separately apply the specific holdings of those authorities.

The Tribunal reasoned that, while the Commission’s 2017 order was under challenge in the review proceedings, the review order extending the commissioning date remained in force and addressed the appellant’s grievance.

The occasion to challenge the 2017 order therefore arose only when APTEL set aside the review order on 28 August 2024.

Reckoning from that date, the Tribunal treated the delay as 332 days.

Although the respondents argued that the appellant had notice of the judgment and that internal deliberations and legal opinions did not establish sufficient cause, the Tribunal considered that the delay was within one year, was not shown to be deliberate or contumacious, and could be addressed by imposing costs.

The Tribunal directed that, if the costs were not paid and proof not filed within the stipulated periods, the condonation application would stand dismissed and the appeal rejected.

The respondents were directed to file their replies within four weeks, with the appellant’s rejoinder due within two weeks thereafter; the matter was listed for 18 November 2026.