APTEL Condones 368-Day Delay In 300 MW Solar Project Appeal Against CERC Order

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has allowed ACME Solar Holdings Limited and its special purpose vehicle, ACME Sikar Solar Private Limited, to continue their legal challenge against an order of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), despite a delay of 368 days in filing the appeal. In its order issued on July 3, 2026, the Tribunal condoned the delay after directing the companies to pay a cost of ₹1.5 lakh to the Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL) within four weeks.

The case relates to a 300 MW grid-connected solar power project developed by ACME. In its order dated November 25, 2024, CERC had extended the project’s commissioning deadline until April 21, 2025. However, the Commission also directed ACME to pay compensation to CTUIL for retaining its grid connectivity at the Bikaner-II transmission line. ACME challenged only this compensation requirement and sought to file an appeal before APTEL.

The company explained that the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time because it was fully engaged in resolving several critical issues affecting the project. According to ACME, it had to focus on protecting the project from operational and regulatory challenges that threatened its completion and grid connectivity.

During this period, ACME paid ₹9.5 crore as compensation to CTUIL to avoid any coercive action. Despite this payment, CTUIL revoked the project’s connectivity in April 2025. ACME then approached CERC, which granted temporary relief and stayed the revocation order. This allowed the company to commission the project by June 25, 2025.

However, the project continued to face transmission challenges because the associated Khetri-Narela transmission line was not ready. As a result, the company could not fully evacuate power from the project. ACME also approached the Delhi High Court to secure grid integration. According to the company, uninterrupted transmission was restored only on December 14, 2025, after CERC issued its final directions.

ACME argued that it delayed filing the appeal because it wanted the operational issues to be fully resolved before starting another legal proceeding. It said this approach would avoid multiple cases of interconnected issues.

CTUIL opposed the request to condone the delay. It argued that ACME had not shown sufficient diligence and accused the company of engaging in “forum shopping.” CTUIL submitted that pursuing other legal remedies should not stop the limitation period for filing an appeal and requested the Tribunal to reject the application.

After examining the matter, APTEL referred to Supreme Court judgments that support a practical and liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” while considering delay condonation applications. The Tribunal observed that ACME had continuously pursued legal remedies, paid substantial compensation, and actively worked to safeguard the project. It also noted that ACME had spent around 60 days pursuing a review petition before CERC, which effectively reduced the actual delay to about 308 days.

Considering these facts, APTEL held that ACME had shown a reasonable explanation for the delay. The Tribunal condoned the 368-day delay subject to payment of ₹1.5 lakh to CTUIL within four weeks. It clarified that failure to make the payment would result in the appeal being dismissed as time-barred, while timely payment would allow the matter to proceed for further hearings.