Harleen Mevqani · Chief Executive Officer · India
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | An investment or strategy committee after induction · A risk committee where the scope fits the verified experience |
I would be interested in an enterprise where an asset transition, commercial concentration or change in service obligations is central to the board's work. The invitation should explain why my experience helps that discussion and where another person's expertise is required. I hold one executive directorship in this demonstration. My February 2026 databank registration is recorded, proficiency assessment is unfinished and no exemption is asserted. These facts should remain separate from any claim that an outside appointment is ready to proceed.
The provisional eighteen-day allowance includes induction, reading, travel and exceptional demands. It would need to fit the company's actual workload and my existing responsibilities. I would ask how the chair expects directors to challenge an established investment case and how management is supported when evidence requires a change of course. The contribution I seek is a disciplined conversation about the enterprise's commitments. It is not an opportunity to become another operating executive through a board title.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
Fictional registration in February 2026; proficiency assessment remains unfinished. No exemption, independent status or appointment eligibility is claimed.
I would bring experience of joining the asset, operating and commercial accounts before a board makes a commitment. A proposal may describe a better future machine or a larger customer relationship while leaving the difficult interval outside its main argument. My contribution would be to ask what the enterprise carries during that interval, which assumptions have responsible owners and what evidence should change the next decision.
I already serve as an executive director of the fictional Vezqamri business. An outside role would still require a different relationship to management and a wider understanding of the prospective company. I would not treat my own portfolio methods as instructions for another operating team. The maintenance-calendar error would be relevant because I approved a simplification after a colleague had raised the condition that complicated it. I would want a board to be able to challenge my preferred account as effectively as anyone else's.
Served as a director
Company board as CEO and executive director
April 2021–present
One executive directorship under a separate chair; presents and participates in company decisions within that role, with no independent-director designation claimed.
The 2016 maintenance programme looked coherent through annual hours, but fourteen days of shutdown at six machines coincided with a strong wind period. I had approved the common calendar despite Safiya's objection. An outside contribution would be to ask which consequential differences sit outside the principal performance measure and how management handles them before making a promise. I would preserve the distinction between the 1.8 GWh counterfactual estimate and ₹1.4 crore contractual credits, rather than imply that one directly valued the other. The board question concerns the completeness of the executive account; the operating and safety decisions remain with the people responsible for them.
The repowering approval compared two paths over eighteen months: 93 GWh for the old-asset estimate and 124 GWh for the replacement forecast including its transition. Actual replacement export was 118 GWh. At another board I would ask whether the common period includes the cost and interruption the company must carry, how a counterfactual is being used and what review could alter a later stage. I would not describe the 25 GWh modelled difference as a directly measured causal gain. A larger nameplate capacity does not settle the funding, execution or operating questions behind the proposal, and an attractive mature-year result should remain distinct from the transition account.
The 812 GWh year remained 98 GWh below its 910 GWh budget. The review's resource, grid and asset allocations were estimates within a stated method, not separately metered causes. My oversight contribution would be to ask whether the board receives the actual result before the explanation and whether the response distinguishes what management can influence from the assumptions it must reconsider. The ₹2.6 crore review programme funded examination and planning, not a claim that every estimated asset loss would be recovered. I would want accountability to remain specific without encouraging managers to claim control over weather or other circumstances they cannot determine.
I would begin by learning how the prospective enterprise makes and reviews commitments. Selected investment papers, operating results and commercial decisions would show where assumptions pass between functions and how unresolved questions reach the board. I would listen to management's account of the business before proposing additional reporting. The purpose would be to understand the decisions the board is responsible for, rather than to reproduce a wind-asset review in a company with different obligations.
I would pay particular attention to the period between an approval and its promised result. Who remains responsible when conditions change? Which review points can actually alter the next step? What does a team do when the measured outcome disappoints the original case? These questions should be grounded in the company's circumstances and the committee's remit. They should not become demands for technical detail that obscures the material choice.
I would initially participate as a committee member after induction. Feedback from the chair would help me judge whether my contributions connect the relevant accounts or merely add another executive preference. My present board experience is useful but does not replace learning the prospective enterprise, its stakeholders and its collective responsibilities. Preparation and exceptional work would form part of the capacity discussion from the beginning.
The first relationship to examine is my continuing CEO appointment and executive directorship. Vezqamri's buyers, service customers, investors and project counterparts could overlap with a prospective company's interests. My 0.2% employee equity allocation is another relevant fact. I would disclose the relationships needed for an appointment-specific review through an agreed confidential process and obtain the appropriate employer consent. The existence of a current board seat does not establish independence in another setting.
Commercial plans, customer terms and site information from the present business would remain protected. I would need to assess whether recurring exclusions could make meaningful participation impractical, even where a formal process for handling an individual conflict exists. An invitation that depends on access to my employer's confidential account would not be a sound basis for service. I would also examine the demands of both calendars, including periods of material transition or unexpected operating work. Qualified assessment of the actual role and applicable requirements would be necessary; this invented record does not decide the outcome.
No independent status is asserted. Current employment, one executive directorship, employee equity and relevant commercial or investor relationships require assessment for the specific outside appointment.