Point of Law: Preamble to the 2003 Act, emphasize upon the promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policy of the State to encourage generation and consumption of green energy to sub-serve the mandate of Article 21 read with Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

1. In W.P.No.18941/2021 & W.P.No.9174/2022, petitioner companies carrying on business in Wind Energy Projects, are knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking invalidation of the Government Order dated 04.09.2021 whereby the Wind Energy Project allotted to one M/S SML Electricals India Private Limited has been transferred to the 6th Respondent (hereafter ‘Ayana Limited’) and further, the then obtaining Project Capacity of 10 MW has been enhanced to 300 MW. This project, according to them, comprises of land ad measuring 44 acres out of the earmarked vast area of 6500 acres in all.

2. In the companion case i.e., in W.P. No.17244/2022 filed by one of these petitioners namely M/s. SJP Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., a Writ of Mandamus is sought for to the respondent-authorities to issue Facilitation Letter in furtherance of Allotment approved by the Allotment Committee vide Order dated 23.01.2019 for 5 MW Wind Power Project.

3. After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through the learned HCGP; the respondent – Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Ltd., (hereafter ‘KREDL’) & its officials are represented by their learned Panel Counsel. The 6th respondent – Ayana Limited is represented by a private advocate. The KREDL and Ayana Limited have filed their Statements of Objections opposing the writ petitions. Learned HCGP, learned Panel Counsel & the learned private advocate make submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it is structured, and seek dismissal of all the writ petitions.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

(a) The fulcrum of petitioners’ case is that the land area in respect of which they have staked their claim is subsumed in the project area allotted to the 6th respondent – Ayana Limited and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be voided. Learned counsel for the petitioners takes the Court through the pages of petition books to substantiate the same. However, both the learned HCGP appearing for the State & the Panel Counsel appearing for the KREDL repel this contention contending that the entire area earmarked for the Wind Energy Project is as vast as 6500 acres and what has been allocated to the 6th respondent is an area of mere 544 acres and therefore, petitioners’ claim is in no way prejudiced by the impugned order, even if they are in future to seek enhancement of the area or the MW capacity and therefore, they are not justified in complaining against the allocation made in favour of 6th respondent-Ayana Limited. A perusal of the records lends abundant support to the case of respondents inasmuch as, the claim of both the petitioners put together works out to a small extent of 66 acres only i.e., 16 acres claimed by the petitioner in W.P.No.18941/2021 and 50 acres claimed by the petitioner in W.P. No.9174/2022.

(b) There is force in the contention of contesting respondents that the petitioners whose claims have not yet become concrete & choate, cannot seek to stick on to a particular piece of earth, especially when as assured by KREDL, they can be accommodated in any other piece of land comprised in the vast area of 6,500 acres, if at all it becomes necessary. What one cannot lose sight of is: the Government & its authorities have been exploring the tapping potential of non-conventional/renewable energy resources like wind power, more particularly by engaging private agencies who are in a position to avail the latest science & technology, to fructify the same. It needs no research to show that our society is starving of electrical power which is the lifeblood of any business & industry, and which also generate abundant employment opportunities. Invalidation of the impugned order on the pleaded grounds that are not much substantiated would dampen the spirit of large – scale investors and their e