GERC Pulls Up Firm Over Delays, Denies Time Extension for Solar Plant

The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) has dismissed a petition filed by a solar power generator seeking an extension of six months. The petitioner, Saanika Polytex Pvt. Ltd was involved in the setting up of a ground-mounted solar power project of 3.95 MW for captive/open access connections. The company had cited prcedural delay, lack of clarity on the banking rules and others to support its argument. 

The company, during its submissions before the state regulatory authority, argued that regulatory uncertainty over banking provisions, land acquisition hurdles, and delays in securing government approvals for transmission lines had stalled progress, which it claimed was not under its control and demanded the extension. 

Reasons Cited For Extension 

Saanika contended that the Ministry of Power’s clarification in August 2024, restricting banking to 30% of net consumption, forced a re-evaluation of project capacity. It also pointed to disputes with landowners, rejection of its initial application for non-agricultural (NA) permission, and delays in no-objection certificates for transmission infrastructure.

The distribution utility Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (DGVCL), however, opposed the plea, arguing that timelines under the tariff order and renewable energy policy were clear, and the company had failed to pay supervision charges or approach authorities for evacuation works. DGVCL further noted that the firm had not maintained a valid bank guarantee for the project. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corp. Ltd. (GETCO) also said its role was limited to issuing the technical feasibility report.

What GERC Said? 

In its order, the Commission observed that the delay claims were “not substantiated with facts and documents.” It held that the land acquisition process was marred by “procedural negligence” on the part of the developer, the banking policy clarification had no bearing on project connectivity, and that Saanika had not taken concrete steps to develop evacuation infrastructure within the mandated one-year timeline.

The regulator also flagged inconsistencies in the bank guarantee submitted, noting that a required ₹39.5 lakh BG was not furnished in time.

Concluding that the company had failed to demonstrate valid grounds for an extension, GERC rejected the petition. 

Final Order

GERC, in its order, said, "We are of the view that the grounds raised by the Petitioner for granting an extension of six months from the Order of the Commission for completion of the solar power project and associated evacuation infrastructure are without merit. Further, the Petitioner had not approached the Respondent for development of the distribution line or for payment of supervision charges. This indicates that the Petitioner had not taken any steps towards the development of evacuation infrastructure up to the filing of the Petition, and even at the time of filing the rejoinder dated 29.07.2025,"

It also added, "In addition, the Petitioner has not placed substantial documents related to NA permission and government approvals in support of its claims for extension of time for completion of the solar power project. Considering the aforesaid observations, none of the three grounds mentioned herein are supportive of the Petitioner. Hence, the prayers sought by the Petitioner are not accepted as valid and are accordingly rejected."