Reading Time: 2 minutes
A petition was filed before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner is seeking to set aside an email dated February 14, 2025, and a letter dated March 1, 2025, issued by the transmission company. The main concern is the rejection of the Stage-II connectivity application submitted by the petitioner for its 35 MW wind power project. This project is intended to be connected to the 66 kV Nadadhri substation developed by the transmission utility. The petitioner claims that the rejection was done for extraneous reasons and lacks legal justification.
The matter also included two interlocutory applications. The first application was filed under Rule 61 of the GERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004, along with Section 94(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It sought urgent listing and interim relief for the case. The second application, under Rule 30 of the same regulations and the Electricity Act, also requested interim relief.
The case was heard on July 29, 2025. During the hearing, the respondent’s representative informed the Commission that the petition was received only recently and requested additional time to file a formal reply. The petitioner’s side argued that after receiving Stage-I connectivity, all required documents and conditions for Stage-II connectivity were fulfilled. These conditions were in line with the connectivity procedure dated January 7, 2023, and also followed the Commission’s previous order dated September 21, 2024, from another case. The petitioner claimed that despite fulfilling all obligations, the transmission utility introduced new conditions not present in the 2023 procedure and used them to cancel the Stage-II connectivity.
The petitioner submitted that the actions of the respondent were arbitrary and illegal. It was also argued that a strong case existed in favor of the petitioner and requested the Commission to grant a status quo in the matter. This would prevent the connectivity from being assigned to any other applicant before a final decision is made.
The respondent opposed the request for status quo and again requested some time to obtain instructions from the concerned department to explain the reasons for rejecting the connectivity request. The respondent asked for two days to present these facts to the Commission.
After hearing both sides, the Commission allowed the respondent two weeks to file a reply, with a copy to be sent to the petitioner. The petitioner is allowed to file a rejoinder within one week after receiving the reply. The Commission took note of the request to maintain the status quo due to urgency and the risk of the connectivity being allocated elsewhere, but decided to wait until further clarification is received.
The Commission scheduled the next hearing for July 31, 2025, at 11:30 AM. The matter is expected to be heard in detail on the said date, especially regarding interim relief and the reasons behind the cancellation of connectivity.
