Abundant Energy Private Limited vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. on 5 October 2026

ORDER

IA No. 1596 of 2025 (For condonation of delay in refiling the Appeal)

1. Considering the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsels and taking note of the averments made in the application, delay in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned.

IA No. 1035 of 2025 (For condonation of delay in filing the appeal)

2. Delay in filing the instant appeal is sought to be condoned by way of this application.

3. The appellant was, in pursuance to the Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 24th December, 2014 issued by 2nd Respondent – Punjab Electricity Development Authority (PEDA) for development of 250 MW capacity grid connected solar PV Power Projects, allotted 1 MW Solar PV Power Project to be set up in District Tarn Taran, Punjab with an approved tariff of Rs.7.68/ per kwh after providing a discount of four paisa on the generic tariff of Rs.7.72/ kwh.

4. Subsequently, Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 31.03.2015 was executed with between the Appellant and first Respondent – Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL). The scheduled date of Commissioning (SCOD) of the project was 10 months from the date of signing of the PPA. However, the project could not be commissioned by its SCOD and accordingly the Appellant approached the 3rd Respondent – Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) with petition No. 25 of 2016 for extension of SCOD. The petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 14.02.2107 thereby refusing to extend the SCOD and

further reducing the tariff of the project from Rs.7.69/kwh to Rs.5.39/kwh.

5. The Appellant filed a Review Petition before the Commission for review of the said order dated 14.02.2017 which was allowed by the Commission vide order dated 21.05.2018. Accordingly, the SCOD of the project was extended upto 23.08.2016. The first Respondent – PSPCL assailed the Review Order dated 21.05.2018 before this Tribunal by way of Appeal No. 316 of 2018. The Appeal was allowed by this Tribunal vide judgement dated 28.08.2024 thereby setting aside the review order dated 21.05.2018 and restoring the order dated 14.02.2017.

6. The instant appeal has now been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 14.02.2017 on 07.07.2025, with a delay of 3020 days.

7. We have heard the Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Sanjay Sen for the Appellant, Ms. Suparna Shrivastava, Learned Counsel for first Respondent and Ms. Gargi Kumar, Learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent. We have also perused the written submission filed by the Learned Counsel.

8. As noted hereinabove, the Appellant had sought review of the order dated 14.02.2017 (which is impugned in this appeal) before the Commission by way of Review Petition No. 04 of 2017 which came to be allowed by the Commission vide order dated 21.05.2018. Thus, the

grievance of the appellant stood addressed by the said review order as its claim for extension of SCOD of its solar power project was extended. However, the said review order was later on set aside by this Tribunal vide judgement dated 28.08.2024 in Appeal No. 316 of 2018 filed by first Respondent PSPCL.

9. Evidently, therefore, the Appellant got reason or occasion to assail the order dated 14.02.2017 on 28.08.2024 when the same was restored by the Tribunal vide the judgement passed in Appeal No. 316 of 2018. Till then, the review order dated 21.05.2018 was in force which was in favour of the Appellant.

10. In these circumstances, period of delay must be reckoned from 28.08.2024 as prior to the said date, there was no cause or occasion for the Appellant to approach this Tribunal, the order dated 14.02.2017 having been set aside in the review proceedings.

11. The period of delay, when reckoned from 28.08.2024, comes to 332 days, which is less than a year.

12. It is argued on behalf of the Respondents that no sufficient reason has been shown by the Appellant for condoning the delay of 332 days also. The learned Counsels for the Respondents argued that the Appellant had knowledge of the judgement dated 28.08.2024 of the Tribunal on that very day itself as the same was pronounced in open

court and Appellant had also received a copy of the judgement on 26.09.2024. It is submitted that prolonged internal deliberations and multiple legal opinions, as projected by the Appellant, do not constitute “sufficient cause”. According to the Learned Counsels, the delay in filing the Appeal cannot be condoned as it fails the test of “sufficient cause” as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgement namely P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556 (para 3.6); Baswaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 (para 9); State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ram Kumar Chaudhary (2024) SCC Online SC 3612, (Para 7) and Sushil Kumar Sen vs. State of Bihar (1975) 1 SCC 774.

13. With regards to these submissions on behalf of the Respondents, we may note that this Tribunal has been consistently condoning the delay of upto one year in filing appeals, albeit upon imposition of suitable costs commensurate with the period of delay. This is primarily for the reason that this Tribunal is a National Tribunal having its seat in New Delhi and the litigants from the farthest corners of India have to traverse considerable distances to reach here, consult the lawyers and to get the appeal drafted as well as filed. We find it unjustified to avoid denying an opportunity of having their appeals adjudicated on merits, to such

litigants. This Tribunal being the forum of first appeal, which is a statutory right for the litigant against whom the order is passed by the Regulatory Commission, must endeavour to decide the appeal on merits instead of throwing out the appeals on technicalities unless the delay appears to be contumacious and deliberate. That is not the case in the present appeal.

14. Thus, considering the overall facts & circumstances of the case as well as the above noted practice being followed consistently by this Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the delay in the instant case also, which is 332 days, should be condemned subject payment of cost.

15. Hence, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of Rs.1.5 lac as costs to be deposited with CTUIL within three weeks from today. Proof of deposit of cost be filed within two weeks thereafter. The Appellant shall also intimate CTU of the Appeal No. and date of order, in terms of which cost are paid.

16. Needless to state that in case aforesaid cost are not paid and proof of payment is not submitted within the stipulated time, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal shall stand dismissed automatically and the Appeal shall stand rejected.

DFR No : 243 of 2025 & IA No. 1036 OF 2025

17. The Respondents shall file reply to the appeal as well as the interim application within four weeks. Rejoinder be filed by the Appellant within two weeks thereafter.

18. List on 18.11.2026. Pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of October, 2026.

Virender Bhat Judicial Member

Seema Gupta Officiating Chairperson

✓ REPORTABLE / NON REPORTABLE js