Learning to question the result I wanted to present

The electricity total had fallen, and I wanted it to mean that our operating work had succeeded. The first period recorded 1.2 GWh and the second 1.05 GWh. A 12.5% reduction was easy to calculate and easy to present. It was harder to acknowledge that the customers' production had changed between the periods and that the total alone did not establish an efficiency gain. I had supported the stronger interpretation before the comparison was ready. The correction began with withdrawing that interpretation, not with finding another attractive number to replace it.

I grew up in Mysuru and completed mechanical engineering at the fictional Javqeri Institute of Engineering in June 1997. The following month I joined Nelzavi Plant Services as a service engineer. The firm had seventy-five employees and ₹12 crore revenue for FY ending March 1998. My place in the six-person engineering group carried assigned work, with neither supervision of colleagues nor authority to spend independently. Senior specialists approved methods and conditions for work. My early contribution was to support records and assignments carefully, including asking what an observation actually established before it became a statement about the whole service.

In June 2004 I became regional service manager. Nelzavi employed 160 people and recorded ₹33 crore revenue for FY ending March 2005. I led twenty-eight colleagues through three leads within ₹3.6 crore annual operating expense. The role made the handoff between a service supplier and a customer's own operation more visible. A condition could be observed at one point while its cause remained elsewhere or unresolved. I learned to coordinate the investigation without deciding in advance that a complaint must belong to whichever party was easiest to charge or defend.

I joined Vezquri in September 2011 as site operations head. The business had sixty employees, two operating sites, six industrial clients and ₹24 crore fee revenue for FY ending March 2012. Thirty-six colleagues worked through three leads within ₹5.4 crore annual non-electricity operating expense. Electricity purchases and larger investment decisions were separate. Moving from service assignments into a continuing utility operation changed the horizon of my responsibility. We remained accountable after the immediate visit, and the customer's changing production pattern could alter the conditions behind a plan that had appeared sensible when first agreed.

The director-of-network-operations appointment followed in July 2016. It was a functional title, not a statutory directorship. Vezquri had eighty-two employees, three sites, eleven clients and ₹51 crore fee revenue for FY ending March 2017. I led fifty-eight operating colleagues through four heads within ₹11 crore annual non-electricity expense. The broader remit required a consistent account without pretending that every site faced identical demand. I became more interested in what a central report omitted: the customer's working pattern, the service interface, the use available for a recovered resource and the people who could actually respond outside ordinary hours.

I became COO in January 2023. Eighty-four operating colleagues now work through four heads in a company of 118 employees. Our five sites serve eighteen industrial clients, with ₹92 crore fee revenue for FY ending March 2026. My ₹21 crore FY 2026–27 delegation covers non-electricity operating expense; electricity purchases and capital remain separately approved. The utility investor owns 52%, the industrial group 33% and the employee vehicle 15%. I have no holding. Imran Dazvemi leads the company, and Sonal Qorzethi works with qualified technical and safety owners on methods and acceptance. Our service consumes electricity; it is not an electricity-generating business.

The electricity-comparison review cost ₹36 lakh and preserved the distinction between a raw reduction and an explained efficiency result. We did not turn the 0.15 GWh difference into a financial saving or emissions benefit without the necessary separate account. Another ₹48 lakh programme examined thirty-six service complaints across the supplier and customer interface. Fourteen had supplier-side findings, twelve client-side findings and ten remained unresolved. We retained those ten instead of using the contractual boundary to make uncertainty look like somebody else's responsibility.

A heat-recovery proposal initially assumed useful demand throughout the year. Review supported demand during four months and left the other eight without an established use. We did not approve the proposed ₹2.4 crore programme on that original basis. The ₹31 lakh feasibility expense stayed in the account, and a ₹44 lakh bounded pilot was approved instead. The smaller proposal was not presented as equivalent to the original opportunity or as a net saving. The remaining technical, commercial and demand questions still needed their responsible owners.

We also examined the contact process behind out-of-hours service. Twenty-six initial drills produced twenty-two acknowledgements and four failures. After ₹22 lakh of review, a further twenty-six produced twenty-four acknowledgements and two unresolved failures. These were tests, not emergency incidents, and acknowledging a message did not establish that a qualified person had arrived or performed the required work. I registered with the IICA independent directors databank in May 2026; assessment preparation remains unfinished and I claim no exemption. I have no statutory seat and provisionally allow twenty-two days for one external role. I would bring operating questions that connect a promise to its actual conditions, while learning to contribute them through collective oversight rather than another company's chain of command.

Open to Board appointments

Languages / Kannada · Hindi · English