Rohit Qezlrani · Chief Executive Officer · India
I would help a board examine whether a company commitment is supported by the whole operating system. My experience includes a component saving that disappeared when auxiliaries were counted, storage whose nominal quantity did not support the intended duration and separate equipment with a shared supply dependency. These are useful questions about the boundary of an investment argument. They do not make a director the designer, safety authority or independent certifier of the plant. I currently serve as an executive director under a separate chair, which gives me direct collective responsibility while also requiring me to recognise when I am presenting management’s preferred account. In an outside role, I would need to learn the business and its professional responsibilities before applying my experience. The contribution should make the commitment clearer to colleagues, including its limitations and resource consequences, without creating a parallel operating hierarchy.
Served as a director
Company board; executive director alongside CEO appointment
April 2020–present
One current statutory executive seat under a separate chair. Presents company commitments and participates in collective board responsibility.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Invited operating and capital discussions as COO
April 2013–March 2020
Prepared operating evidence and recommendations through the CEO before becoming a director.
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Operating performance and infrastructure investment discussions · Service continuity and technical-risk oversight |
I would consider one additional non-executive contribution where an experienced chair wants practical scrutiny of an asset-intensive service model. Eligibility, independence and preparation require a company-specific assessment; my current executive seat does not settle them. I could contribute to operating-performance, infrastructure-investment or technical-risk discussions under established leadership, without offering to chair a statutory committee. I would want clarity about the finance, engineering, legal and safety skills already represented and the particular perspective the board needs. Management must retain responsibility for design and delivery, with suitable professional assurance. A role built mainly around supplier introductions or informal project certification would be unsuitable. The contribution I seek is to help colleagues understand whether the promised service matches the system, duration and dependencies the company has actually examined, and what remains to be done before a broader commitment is justified.
Chiller electricity fell by 0.24 GWh while auxiliaries increased by 0.31 GWh in the defined comparison. I would ask directors whether the evidence boundary matches the whole-plant investment recommendation and whether useful output and operating conditions have been examined. The revised total did not by itself establish a single cause, but it invalidated the narrower saving account I had promoted. A corrected measure should change the decision built on it, including when the sponsor is the CEO or an executive colleague. The board should understand what further evidence is needed and why capital remains unapproved. It should not prescribe plant settings or turn an incomplete comparison into a new universal operating conclusion. The important oversight habit is to keep the complete system visible before accepting the easiest performance number.
Three of nine proposed arrangements still had an unresolved shared supply dependency. The board’s phased ₹12.8 crore approval funded the response; it did not establish that the revised capability was already available. I would ask how the customer promise distinguishes supported scope, authorised work and completed professional acceptance. The six arrangements with supporting evidence also retained scenario limitations rather than a claim of protection against every outage. Directors need that distinction to assess timing, resources and commercial exposure. They should rely on qualified technical and legal assessment rather than infer resilience from the number of machines or a capital approval. My contribution would be to question whether the organisation’s language has moved ahead of the capability it can currently substantiate.
I would begin by learning the company’s most consequential service commitments and how their operating evidence reaches the board. Through induction agreed with the chair, I would examine one recent capital approval and one continuing technical limitation, meeting management and assurance providers through established arrangements. I would ask how the account distinguishes rated capacity, demonstrated capability and contractual scope, and how a limitation can change a commercial recommendation. My existing executive directorship remains part of the capacity assessment alongside the proposed twenty-four days for another role. The actual calendar and employer arrangements need agreement before acceptance. I would seek feedback on whether my questions improve collective judgement or draw the board into engineering management. A useful first-year contribution might clarify the conditions for recognising a major project as capable of supporting its promise, rather than add a new reporting process without a clear business purpose.
My company role gives me access to customer contracts, infrastructure-investor discussions, equipment terms and operating plans. I also hold a 0.3 percent beneficial interest through the employee vehicle and participate in the company board. Those relationships must be examined against any proposed outside appointment, including competing service providers, shared customers, suppliers and investors. I would disclose relevant connections before protected information is exchanged and obtain the required company and employer agreement. I would not use another board seat to influence equipment procurement or transfer confidential operating knowledge into a commercial negotiation. Recusal can address a defined matter, but repeated exclusion from the infrastructure agenda may remove the reason for appointing me. Capacity also needs a realistic account of exceptional operating demands. I would decline an arrangement that expects preferential access, a personal engineering sign-off or endorsement of a service promise outside the receiving company’s qualified assurance and approval process.
My executive seat,0.3% beneficial interest and relationships with infrastructure investors, customers and equipment suppliers require appointment-specific review. Current executive service does not establish independent status elsewhere.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
One executive directorship is current. Preparation and any applicable registration for an independent outside role remain incomplete; no proficiency pass or exemption is asserted.