Serentica Renewables India 4 Pvt. Ltd. vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr on 23 September 2026

ORDER

PER HON’BLE MRS. SEEMA GUPTA, OFFICIATING CHAIRPERSON IA NO. 626 OF 2026 (interim relief)

1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by Serentica Renewables India 4 Pvt. Ltd. (“SRI4PL”/ “Appellant”) under Rule 30 of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Procedure, Form, Fee, and Record of Proceedings) Rules, 2007, seeking ex-parte ad-interim directions, in the accompanying Appeal filed against the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (“CERC”/ “Central Commission”) and Central Transmission Utility of India Ltd. (“CTUIL”/ “Respondent No. 2.”). The Appeal challenges the common Order dated 02.03.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by CERC in Petition No. 276/MP/2025 along with the

connected matters in regard to the compensation cost levied towards granting additional time for achieving commissioning of its 200MW Wind Capacity Project located in Kallam, Maharashtra.

2. The Appellant has filed present application seeking following interim reliefs: - (a) Stay the operation of the Impugned Order dated 02.03.2026 passed by Ld. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission in Petition No. 276/MP/2025, to the extent challenged by way of the present Appeal, specifically directions to SRI4PL to make payments towards penalty so as to retain its 200 MW Connectivity granted at Kallam SS, as computed in terms of Paragraph 68 of the Impugned Order, till the final disposal of the present Appeal; (b) Stay the operation of the Demand Note dated 17.03.2026 raised by CTUIL seeking payment of Rs 2,95,72,600/- by SRI4PL as well as any future demands to be raised in terms of the Impugned Order, till final disposal of the present Appeal;

(c) Stay the operation of Ld. CERC's direction that the validity of SRI4PL's would be extended for a maximum period of 15 months from 01.07.2025 as being arbitrary and without any basis and extend the validity of the SRI4PL's connectivity till such time the Project is commissioned; (d) Direction to CTUIL to not take any coercive or punitive action against SRI4PL further to the directions in the Impugned Order; and

e) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit.

3. The Applicant has proposed to set up a 200 MW Wind Power Project at Kallam, Maharashtra and had applied for stage-II Connectivity, vide application dated 10.08.2022 with start date of connectivity and SCOD from 01.07.2024. After notification of GNA Regulations, 2022, in terms of Regulation 37, the Applicant filed the application dated 02.05.2023 for transition of 200MW LTA/Connectivity from Connectivity Regulations, 2009 to GNA Regulations, 2022. On 01.03.2024 CTUIL intimated final grant of connectivity for 200 MW, at Kallam SS, wherein the start date of the connectivity was notified as 31.12.2024 subject to the availability of Common Transmission System augmentation for connectivity under GNA.

4. From 07.02.2025, CTUIL started raising invoices for transmission charges in terms of Sharing Regulations, 2020. Subsequently, CTUIL revoked SRI4PL’s connectivity vide its letter dated 10.03.2025 due to failure in Commissioning of the project within timeline stipulated under Regulation 24.6 (1)(a)(ii) i.e., by 30.12.2023 being 6 months from the SCOD indicated in the connectivity application (30.06.2023).

5. Appellant had filed Petition No. 276/MP/2025 before CERC, challenging the revocation of SRI4PL’s connectivity of 200 MW granted to SRI4PL at Kallam SS in terms of Regulation 24.6(1)(a)(ii) of the GNA Regulations, inter-alia, seeking the following reliefs: -(a) Quashing and setting aside of two Notices dated 24.01.2025 issued by CTUIL to SRI4PL (“Notices dated 24.01.2025”) in terms of Regulation 24.6(1)(a)(ii) of the GNA Regulations, revoking the connectivity of 200 MWs granted to SRI4PL;(b) Extension of the validity of the connectivity for 200 MW till December 2025, or the actual date of commissioning, subject to grant of statutory approvals required for commissioning the Project; (c) Exercise

of CERC’s power to relax the applicability of Regulation 24.6(1)(a)(ii) of the GNA Regulations such that validity of the connectivity granted to SRI4PL is extended to enable SRI4PL commission the corresponding wind capacity of 200 MW and utilize the said connectivity to evacuate power.

6. By the Impugned Order, CERC, in exercise of powers under Regulations 41 and 42 of the GNA Regulations, relaxed Regulation 24.6(1)(a)(ii) to permit retention of SRI4PL’s 200 MW Connectivity at Kallam SS, subject to payment of compensation. CERC devised an escalating compensation mechanism linked to Connectivity Bank Guarantees (“Conn-BGs”) comprising upfront payment, daily charges, and escalation up to 200%, subject to a maximum period of 15 months to be recovered by CTUIL through adjustment of amounts recovered from Conn-BG and by raising invoices for additional amounts till such time the project is commissioned or expiry of the 15 months along with this, the SRI4PL was directed to re-submit Conn-BGs which were returned in lieu of the equivalent cash deposit by SRI4PL, within one month of the date of the impugned order. CERC further held that for projects transitioning from the Connectivity Regulations, 2009 to the GNA Regulations, SCOD shall be the same as the start date sought in the transition application or the start date granted by CTUIL in the grant of connectivity, whichever is later.

7. For SRI4PL, CERC had recognized a trigger date of 01.07.2025 and even if part capacity achieves COD within this 3-month period, the amount payable shall remain 50% of the total Conn-BGs without any pro-rata refund (ii) the period beyond 3 months i.e. from the 3rd month till the 15th month compensation mechanism was worked out.

8. Pursuant to which, CTUIL issued a Demand Note dated 17.03.2026 computing total compensation assessed towards the delay in commissioning of the project of Rs. 10,45,72,600/- (at Rs. 2,083/MW/day for 200 MW). It is submitted by Applicant that an amount of Rs 10.45 Crore has already been paid under protest, and approximately Rs 1.05 crores towards bilateral Bills raised by CTUIL from 07.02.2025 till 01.07.2026 at the rate of Rs 6,00,000 per month has been paid. Applicant/Appellant has enclosed a table alongwith its written submissions detailing payments paid as well as estimated compensation, according to which an total potential liability amount works out to Rs. 19,63,22,600 up to 30.09.2026.

9. Aggrieved by the imposition of compensation charges and extension of SCOD only up 30.09.2026, non-consideration of specific force majeure events affecting the Applicant’s project, Appellant has filed present Appeal as well as filed the subject application for interim relief, as admittedly out of 200 MW capacity , only about 102.3 MW has been commissioned and commissioning of balance capacity shall extend beyond 30.09.2026, and there is threat of revocation of capacity for non- commissioned capacity post 30.09.2026. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

10. We have heard Mr. B.P Patil, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Applicant, Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd Respondent-CTUIL and Mr. Dhananjay Baijal Counsel for the Commission and perused the written submissions filed by parties, which are summarized hereunder, and other documents on record:

SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

11. It is submitted on behalf of Applicant/Appellant that CERC failed to consider force majeures for the subject project, in fixing the extension period while at Paragraph 58 of the Impugned Order, CERC has recognized, that the Project was affected by uncontrollable and unforeseen events, however it returned no independent finding correlating the 15-months outer limit to the actual delay caused by those events. It is further pointed out that the 15 months extension time line in terms of Impugned Order shall expire on 30.09.2026, and there is threat to revocation of connectivity for the part capacity which is yet to be commissioned. Applicant submits that SRI4PL has invested approximately Rs. 2,512.25 Crore towards developing its Project and about 102.3 MW has already been commissioned. Further, another 22 WTGs corresponding to 72.6 MW, has been erected and FTC (First Time Charging approvals) approval have been received and another 2-3 months time is required for completion of pre-commissioning and commissioning activities.

12. It is submitted that the Impugned Order failed to account for the impact of force majeure events, brought on record by SRI4PL at the time of adjudication of Petition No. 276/MP/2025, being: (a) Inordinate delay in grant of statutory micro-siting approvals by MEDA, the Appellant submits that from February 2023, it has applied for statutory approvals by MEDA as SRI4PL cannot set up WTGs without confirmation of locations, however the approvals were granted after a delay ranging from 20 days to 1038 days. (b) unprecedented rainfall from July–October 2024 and May–August 2025 in Osmanabad, Maharashtra, hampered Project works,

as evinced by letters dated 15.01.2025 and 09.09.2025 from the District Collector, Dharashiv (c) delay in PTCC approval for the 33kV internal transmission network and 220kV DTL that SRI4PL filed PTCC approval applications on 13.04.2024 but received approvals only on 27.03.2025 and (d) RoW issues, including agitation by farmers and political intervention, hindering Project works and mitigating activities.

13. Applicant/Appellant further submits that post reserving the Impugned Order, some events occurred, which were beyond SRI4PL's control like an ongoing spate of theft and vandalism at the Project site (33kV wiring/poles, WTG copper wiring, aluminium conductors, transformer components), accompanied by threats to personnel. FIRs have already been filed and representations have been made to the District Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Since replacement parts are sourced from OEMs in China and take 3–6 months, SRI4PL, in order to reduce the timeline and to restore the affected WTGs delivered on site but yet to be installed and submits that the installed WTGs may be commissioned as per the timelines under FTC approvals. It is contented that the magnitude of RoW issues in Maharashtra is evidences in the letter dated 08.01.2025 to MNRE and MNRE letter to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra dated 13.01.2025 and its response dated 06.03.2025. Further, to mitigate this, on 04.02.2026, SRI4PL received anti-theft charging approvals for 14 km DTL and has spent approximately Rs. 1.45 crore to deploy government security personnel of Maharashtra State Security Corporation to address RoW issues and ensure safe working conditions at the project site and spent Rs. 9.5 crore on CCTV/perimeter detection system and sensors and security guards for patrolling.

14. During hearing of the Interim application, Learned senior Counsel for Applicant prays for extension of 3 months from 30.09.2026 (i.e., the date on which connectivity can be revoked for non-commissioned capacity) up to 31.12.2026, so as to overcome the delays caused due to ongoing RoW issues of theft and vandalism, and commission the 22 WTGs corresponding to 72.6 MW wind capacity and the balance capacity, without payment of any penalty for such 3-month extension and to continue the interim protection granted vide Order dated 20.05.2026, till final disposal of the present Appeal. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO 2- CTUIL

15. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that by virtue of the Impugned Order, the Central Commission not only extended the trigger date from the original revocation date of 01.01.2025 to 01.07.2025 but also granted a period of 15 months from the extended trigger date, i.e. from 01.07.2025, subject to the payment of compensation. Therefore, overall, the Applicant has been granted 21 months to achieve commissioning of its Project, i.e., by 30.09.2026. Having accepted and availed the benefit of retention of connectivity, the Appellant cannot challenge the condition attached to retention of Connectivity post the trigger date, i.e., the payment of compensation. The said compensation mechanism ensures that there is no squatting or retention of scarce ISTS resources in perpetuity. CERC therefore, balanced competing interests by permitting retention of connectivity while imposing compensation linked to Conn-BG values. It is further submitted that the Applicant voluntarily opted for transition and became a deemed applicant under the GNA regime, and is accordingly bound by all the provisions of the GNA Regulations,

including compliance with timelines, obligations and consequences prescribed therein. Respondent No 2 submits that in case of relinquishment, the grantee surrenders the connectivity and the corresponding capacity is released to the system and the consequence is one-time and capped to Conn-BGs. On the contrary, the compensation mechanism as per the Impugned Order is the price of continued retention of an unused scarce resource. The escalation in the compensation mechanism is calibrated to the increasing cost of prolonged blockage and operates so long as the Appellant chooses retention over the surrender option. Further, CERC, in the Impugned Order has also recorded that compensation to be paid for retention of connectivity shall have no bearing on the liability under the Sharing Regulations, 2020. Therefore, the Transmission charges applicable under the Sharing Regulations, 2020 are levied to recover the cost from users in a non-discriminatory manner. Whereas the compensation mechanism imposed is linked to the delay and arises solely on account of the Appellant's failure to commission its project within prescribed timelines while continuing to retain allocated connectivity.

16. Respondent No 2 further submits that CERC has considered the alleged Force Majeure events and categorically recorded in Paragraph 61 that the Project is under an advanced stage of implementation where mostly WTGs have been erected and the project should be allowed to be commissioned, however further recorded that the Petitioners should have taken advanced steps to complete their Projects within the timeline provided under the regulation such that the transmission system is optimally utilised. It was in the said circumstances that the Central Commission exercised its power to relax and granted an extension subject to compensation, with an outer limit of 15 months. Without prejudice to the

above, as on date, 102.3 MW (out of 200 MW) stands commissioned. Insofar as the 62.7 MW is concerned, the Appellant has placed on record the letter dated 09.07.2026 issued by extending the period for injection of infirm power up to 07.10.2026. As such, WRLDC is not the competent authority to grant extension and is merely granting time for infirm power injection. However, if this Tribunal is inclined to grant any limited relief, the same may only be in respect of such 62.7 MW capacity and up to 07.10.2026, subject to payment of compensation in terms of the mechanism prescribed under the Impugned Order for the period beyond 30.09.2026. It is further submitted that any such limited extension, if granted, ought not to operate as a precedent and may be confined to the peculiar facts of the present case, particularly where the capacity of 62.7 MW is stated to be ready for commissioning. The Appellant, however, has not placed any materials regarding the balance 35 MW capacity. Accordingly, the Connectivity corresponding to such 35 MW ought to be revoked with effect from 01.10.2026.

17. It is submitted that in terms of Impugned Order, Applicant/Appellant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 20.33 crore, as on 30.09.2026, out of which only Rs.10.45 crore has already been paid. In case this Hon'ble Tribunal deems it fit to grant any further extension beyond 30.09.2026, the Applicant/Appellant ought to be directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs. 20.33 crore, along with compensation for the extension beyond 30.09.2026 (if any) granted by this Tribunal. OUR CONSIDERATION

18. After hearing the learned senior counsel for the parties, the principal issue arising for consideration in the present application is the threat of

revocation of connectivity for the non-commissioned capacity post 30.09.2026 in terms of the Impugned Order. The Applicant has also prayed for stay of the balance compensation payment directed therein.

19. By way of the Impugned Order, petitions filed by three generators concerning non-commissioning of their respective projects on account of various difficulties, including force majeure, and seeking extension of time for commissioning, were disposed of. The submissions of the Applicant/Appellant, are recorded at page 7 onwards of the Impugned Order, which specifically advert to the force majeure conditions faced by them as well as their submissions that the entire 350 MW capacity is likely to be commissioned by December 2026, with 263 MW expected by June 2026. The petition of the Applicant/Appellant before CERC was confined to connectivity for 200 MW of project capacity. In terms of the Impugned Order, the Connectivity Revocation date of 01.01.2025 for 200 MW project capacity of Appellant, was extended to 01.07.2025, under Issue No1.

20. Under Issue No 2, CERC takes note that Regulation 24.6 of the GNA Regulations mandates revocation of connectivity after six months from the scheduled date of commercial operation, however, considering the force majeure conditions faced by the projects and noting that projects were at an advanced stage of construction, observed that revocation at this stage would not be prudent in the sector’s interest, though it also emphasized that petitioners ought to have taken timely steps to complete their projects.

21. Considering the submissions made by the Petitioners, including the Appellant herein and taking note of status of installation of WTG and transmission line, CERC thought it to be a fit case to exercise its power to

relax and remove difficulty and for revocation of their Regulatory power to safeguard the interest of the sector. However, it was further observed that the Petitioners are holding the scarce resource and have not been able to complete the project within specified time line under the Regulation, such relaxation should be subject to payment of compensation.

22. Thereafter, CERC utilizing its power under Regulation 41 (Power to relax) and Regulation 42 (Power to remove Difficulty) under GNA Regulations relaxed the Regulation 24.6 of the GNA Regulations to the extent that connectivity shall not be revoked under Regulation 24.6 of the GNA Regulations by CTUIL and worked out a methodology for the compensation. A maximum time extension of 15 months was granted for achieving the SCOD from the Trigger date i.e., 01.07.2025 with varying compensation mechanism.

23. In the case of the Appellant/Applicant, retention of connectivity beyond the trigger date of 01.07.2025 has been permitted for an extended period of fifteen months, albeit subject to payment of compensation in terms of the Impugned Order. At this ad-interim stage, we are unable to accept the contention of the Appellant/Applicant that the Impugned Order has failed to deliberate upon the force majeure conditions urged by them and that a blanket extension of fifteen months has been granted. On the contrary, we find that the CERC, in the Impugned Order, has duly taken cognizance of the force majeure issues faced by the Appellant/Applicant’s project. It is also significant that the Appellant/Applicant itself has submitted that its project is expected to be commissioned by June 2026, whereas the SCOD has been extended up to September 2026, i.e., three months beyond the Appellant’s own projection. In these circumstances, we do not consider it appropriate, at this ad-interim stage, to stay the

operation of the Impugned Order on this ground. This observation is, however, made without prejudice to the rival contentions of the parties on the aforesaid aspect, which shall be examined at the time of final hearing of the Appeal.

24. Applicant/ Appellant has made submissions before us, that subsequent to reserving of the Impugned Order by CERC, there has been delay in achieving the commissioning on account of theft and vandalism, which are being addressed by them expeditiously. We are of the view that such developments ought to have been brought to the notice of CERC prior to pronouncement of Impugned Order. Nevertheless, at the interim stage, considering that Applicant is praying for a further time period of three months only, it may not be prudent to let the connectivity be revoked after completion of extension period i.e., by 30.09.2026 in terms of Impugned Order especially when FTC for the 72.6 MW capacity has been achieved, though Respondent No 2 contended it to be for 62.7 MW, which we do not find necessary to adjudicate at this stage, and the said 72.6 MW capacity is expected to be commissioned by December 2026. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Applicant/Appellant made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience lie in the favour of Applicant for grant of some interim relief.

25. Insofar as compensation is concerned, we take note that extension in commissioning of the project beyond the time line stipulated in the applicable Regulations has been granted in the Impugned Order in exercise of power under Regulation 41 ( Power to relax) and Regulation 42 (Power to Remove Difficulty) and compensation has been worked considering that connectivity is a scarce resource and applicant has not been able to commission the project, accordingly we are not inclined to

interfere with compensation methodology indicated in the Impugned Order at the Interim Stage as the issue needs detailed deliberations which can be taken up at the time of hearing of the main Appeal after going through the Regulation and rival contentions. Applicant in its written submissions has admitted the potential liability of compensation as Rs 19,63,22,600 in terms of Impugned order up to 30.09.2026, in which Rs 10,45,72,600 has already been paid by Applicant, albeit under protest, and balance potential liability is of Rs 9,17,50,000. While Respondent No 2 has contended that total liability amount works out to Rs 20.33 Crore upto 30.09.2026, and any Interim Relief should be subject to payment of balance amount in Rs 20.33Crore after considering payment of Rs 10.45 Crore already made and further it should also be subject to the payment of compensation for the extended period, if granted by this Tribunal. At the Interim Stage, we don’t feel it necessary to adjudicate the exact amount payable up to 30.09.2026 as well as the amount of compensation for the extended period, same shall be deliberated at the time of hearing of the main Appeal.

26. The rival contentions of the parties on other grounds raised in the Appeal, are left open and shall be considered and adjudicated at the time of final hearing of the main Appeal and nothing in this order shall be construed as a finding on the merits of those contentions.

27. In view of above deliberations, we extend the SCOD for a further period of three months from 30.09.2026 i.e. up to 31.12.2026 for the 72.6 MW capacity, for which FTC has been approved. Further, such extension, shall be subject to the payment of balance amount of Rs 9,17,50,000 to CTUIL by the Appellant/Applicant within two weeks of date of this order, failing which the CTUIL would be at the liberty to revoke the

connectivity for the capacity not commissioned out of the 72.6 MW by that date. We however make it clear that the compensation, if any, for the extended period in terms of this order, as well as the compensation amount already paid and payable as directed above to CTUIL by the Appellant /Applicant shall be subject to the outcome of the Appeal.

28. The IA No. 626 of 2026 is disposed of in these terms. APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2026 It is to note that reply has not been filed by the 1st Respondent despite opportunity given vide earlier orders dated 01.07.2026 & 15.07.2026. Respondent no.2 has already filed reply, against which rejoinder has also been filed by the Appellant, therefore, pleadings qua Respondent No.2 are complete. Registry is directed to include this matter in the ‘List of Finals’, to be taken up, in its turn. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. (Virender Bhat) Judicial Member (Seema Gupta) Officiating Chairperson REPORTABLE / NON-REPORTABLE Pr/ak