Petition for extension of the time limit for erection of transmission line for enhancement of the load – EQ
Summary:
—
## **Case Details**
* **Petitioner**: *Surya Roshni Limited* (Kutch, Gujarat)
* **Respondents**:
1. *Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited (GETCO)*
2. *Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL)*
* **Subject**: Petition seeking **extension of time limit for erection of a 66 kV transmission line** for enhancement of load from **4000 KVA to 7000 KVA**.
* **Coram**: Mehul M. Gandhi & S. R. Pandey, Members.
* **Hearing Date**: 28.08.2025
* **Order Date**: 08.09.2025
—
## **Petitioner’s Arguments**
1. **Maintainability**:
* Rejected respondents’ claim that this is merely a consumer-licensee dispute.
* Relief sought is under **GERC Regulations**, where responsibility of laying the transmission/distribution network lies with the licensee.
* Petitioner is eligible for time extension if work is not completed within **six months** by approaching the Commission.
2. **Delay Reasons**:
* **Right of Way (RoW) issues** during network laying.
* Required permission from **National Highway Authority** for road crossing.
* Resulted in an **18-month delay**, claimed as beyond Petitioner’s control.
3. **Equity and Force Majeure**:
* Work carried out under **Option III** (consumer executing work on behalf of licensee).
* Argued that delay qualifies as **force majeure**; demand charges levied after 180 days are against regulatory provisions.
* Requested extension of time and invalidation of demand charges.
—
## **Respondents’ Arguments**
1. **Jurisdiction**:
* Claimed matter falls under **Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003** (consumer-licensee disputes).
* Should be handled by **CGRF** (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum) and **Electricity Ombudsman**, not GERC.
2. **Precedent Cases**:
* Distinguished from *KP Energy vs. GETCO (2012)*, which involved a generator-licensee dispute under **Section 86(1)(f)**.
* Here, Petitioner is a consumer, hence Commission has **no jurisdiction**.
3. **Force Majeure & Regulations**:
* Supply agreement lacks **force majeure clause**, so Petitioner cannot claim relief on this ground.
* GERC Regulations allow **maximum 180-day extension**, no provision for longer periods.
—
## **Commission’s Decision (Interim)**
* Heard both parties’ oral arguments.
* Allowed **4 weeks’ time** to both Petitioner and Respondents for filing **written submissions**.
* Matter to be **reserved for final order** thereafter.
—
## **Key Takeaways**
* The case revolves around **jurisdiction (GERC vs CGRF/Ombudsman)** and whether the Petitioner can seek time extension under **force majeure circumstances**.
* **No final order yet**—decision deferred pending written submissions.
* Outcome will clarify whether industrial consumers executing Option III works can get regulatory extensions beyond the 180-day limit.
—
For more information please see below link:
