Petition of the GERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations for extension of time period for commissioning of the Project to occurrence of unforeseen and uncontrollable events – EQ
Summary:
—-
**Core Matter:**
The case involves a petition filed by **Bhathwari Technologies Limited** (the Petitioner) against **Gujarat Energy Transmission Corp. Limited** (GETCO, the Respondent).
**Petitioner’s Request (Main Petition No. 2517 of 2025):**
Bhathwari Technologies Limited sought directions from the Commission to extend the time period for commissioning its project capacity. The request was made under Sections 86(1)(c), (e), (f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Regulations 80 & 82 of the GERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004. The grounds for seeking the extension were the occurrence of **unforeseen and uncontrollable events** that hindered the timely commissioning of the project.
**Interlocutory Application (IA No. 63 of 2025):**
Along with the main petition, the Petitioner also filed an interlocutory application under Section 94(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Regulations 61 and 80 of the GERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004. In this application, the Petitioner sought an **interim stay or injunction** while the main petition was pending.
**Key Events & Current Status:**
– **Hearing:** The matter was heard by a three-member bench comprising the Chairman and two Members on **26 February 2026**.
– **Arguments:** Both the Petitioner’s and Respondent’s counsels completed their arguments and made their submissions.
– **Written Submissions:** Both parties requested time to file their respective written submissions.
– **Commission’s Order:** The Commission granted the parties time (specified as “weeks’ time”) to file their written submissions.
– **Matter Reserved:** Following the filing of these submissions, the matter was **reserved for an appropriate order** by the Commission.
**Legislative and Regulatory Framework Cited:**
– **Electricity Act, 2003:**
– **Section 86(1)(c), (e), (f):** These clauses outline the functions of the State Commission, including adjudicating disputes between licensees and generating companies, promoting cogeneration and renewable energy, and adjudicating upon matters referred to it.
– **Section 94(2):** This clause grants the Commission the powers of a civil court in respect of matters like granting interim injunctions.
– **GERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004:**
– **Regulations 61 & 80:** These deal with the conduct of proceedings and hearings.
– **Regulations 80 & 82:** These pertain to the general procedures for petitions.
**Current Status:**
The matter is now **pending final order**. The Commission has concluded the hearing and is awaiting written submissions from both parties before issuing its final ruling on both the main petition (for time extension) and the interlocutory application (for interim relief).
—
**Key Issue:**
The core dispute revolves around a **delay in project commissioning**. Bhathwari Technologies is arguing that the delay was caused by “unforeseen and uncontrollable events” (force majeure or similar circumstances) and is therefore seeking a formal extension of the commissioning timeline from the regulator. Without this extension, the company could face penalties, contract termination, or loss of its allocated project capacity.
**Strategic Implications:**
1. **Risk of Delay Penalties:** For the developer (Bhathwari Technologies), an unfavorable order could result in significant financial penalties, forfeiture of bank guarantees, or even the revocation of the project allocation. The request for interim relief (IA No. 63) suggests the developer was seeking immediate protection against such adverse actions while the main petition was being considered.
2. **Regulatory Precedent:** The final order in this case will set a precedent for how GERC handles time extension requests for projects facing delays due to unforeseen circumstances. It will provide clarity on what constitutes a valid reason for extension and the evidentiary burden required.
3. **Transmission Utility’s Position:** GETCO, as the respondent, likely argues that the delay was within the developer’s control and that no extension should be granted, emphasizing the importance of adhering to project timelines for grid planning and reliability.
—-
For more information please see below link:
