The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) is hearing a dispute between Carysil Limited and Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) regarding the commissioning timeline of a captive solar power project and the encashment of a bank guarantee worth ₹26.40 lakh.
Carysil Limited is developing a 2.64 MW AC (3 MW DC) captive solar power project under the Gujarat Renewable Energy Policy, 2023. The company received provisional registration from the Gujarat Energy Development Agency (GEDA) in January 2024. As part of the connectivity process, Carysil paid the required supervision charges and submitted a bank guarantee of ₹26.40 lakh to PGVCL in March 2025 as a connectivity security deposit. A connectivity agreement was signed between the two parties in April 2025 for evacuation through the 66 kV Devla Substation.
Under the terms of the original agreement, the company was required to complete and commission the evacuation infrastructure within 12 months, setting the deadline as April 21, 2026. However, Carysil has argued that a GERC order issued in January 2026 revised the completion timelines for renewable energy projects below 100 MW. According to the company, the order increased the permissible period from 12 months to 18 months, effectively extending its project deadline to October 21, 2026.
The company attributed the project delay to regulatory and administrative challenges. Carysil had acquired land in Village Dabhali in Gujarat’s Amreli district and applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) permission in January 2025. Since the project site falls within the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Gir forest region, the local administration required a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Forest Department before processing the application.
Carysil stated that it participated in all inspections and responded to official queries by January 2026. However, the Forest Department issued the required NOC only on May 22, 2026. The delay prevented the company from obtaining NA permission and carrying out significant construction activities at the project site within the original timeline.
Despite these circumstances, PGVCL issued a notice on April 20, 2026, alleging that the company had failed to meet the Scheduled Commercial Operation Date. Carysil responded to the notice, explaining the reasons for the delay and referring to the GERC order that extended project timelines. Nevertheless, PGVCL proceeded to encash the company’s bank guarantee on April 30, 2026.
Carysil has challenged the action before GERC, claiming that the encashment was arbitrary and inconsistent with the Commission’s directives. During a hearing held on June 9, 2026, counsel representing PGVCL maintained that the discom had acted in accordance with the original terms under which connectivity was granted. PGVCL requested three weeks to submit a detailed response to the petition, and Carysil did not oppose the request.
In its daily order dated June 18, 2026, the GERC bench comprising Hiren Shah and Jatin N. Thakkar granted PGVCL three weeks to file its reply. Carysil has been allowed an additional two weeks to submit its rejoinder. The Commission stated that the next date of hearing will be communicated separately.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
){kind=link}