Keep the river and route inside the plan.
In 2017 I supported a sediment-removal programme because the proposed work volume and contractor schedule appeared to fit. The plan covered 30,000 cubic metres, but the reviewed receiving arrangements supported only 18,000 cubic metres. I had approved the operating recommendation before the destination capacity had received equivalent scrutiny. We held the unsupported 12,000 cubic metres outside the authorised work and reopened the programme. No unsupported disposal is claimed to have occurred. The correction taught me that a maintenance plan does not end at the point where material leaves our site.
I now lead operations at Zevqralhi Hydro Services in Gangtok. Four station heads lead 172 operating colleagues within ₹32 crore annual non-capital operating expense. The company employs 242 people and owns four 24 MW stations, giving 96 MW installed capacity. FY2025–26 generation was 276 GWh and revenue ₹138 crore. I report to CEO Leena Qazlveri, without a statutory seat or personal ownership interest. Qualified engineering, environmental, electrical and safety owners retain their responsibilities. My role is to coordinate the operating commitment around those decisions, including when the evidence requires a smaller scope or a later date.
Subsequent work examined whether daily release records could substantiate a continuing operating requirement, and whether replacement components could reach a station through the available transport route. Both cases challenged an apparently complete programme: a total did not establish what happened throughout the period, and a spare held in stores did not establish a usable recovery option. I would consider an operations mandate that gives these dependencies a place before commitments harden. An initial outside-board contribution would require governance preparation, relationship review and an agreed calendar. Twenty-two annual days is a proposal, not an accepted obligation. I would bring experience of changing the plan I first supported when the wider physical account showed it could not yet be delivered responsibly.
Receiving capacity before removal volume
The unsupported part of a sediment programme stayed outside authorised work while its route was reconsidered.
Interval evidence beside release totals
A retrospective review retained unresolved periods rather than declare compliance from aggregate records.
A reachable component before a recovery promise
Transport constraints changed which spare movements could enter the operating plan.
Operations within professional authority
Delivery coordination does not replace engineering, environmental or safety approval.
Current focus
Hydro maintenance commitments with receiving arrangements, downstream evidence and physical access examined together.
Conversations I welcome
Regional hydro operations leadership and a prepared first non-executive contribution.