Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V HOSMANI, J.
M/s. Solarone Energy Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9952 of 2025 (GM-KEB)
Decided on : 09-09-2025
For the Appellant :SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI SAMARTH KASHYAP, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI S.S. NAGANAND, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMONA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE, SRI PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE, SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR
Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for petitioners who have not exhausted available alternative remedies, reinforcing procedural propriety in electricity regulation cases.
Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 79 and 111 - Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Connectivity and General Network Access to Inter-state Transmission System) Regulations, 2022 - Writ petition challenging orders of the CERC denying extension of time for the compliance of stipulated conditions regarding connectivity - The court held that failure to exhaust alternative remedies precludes the writ petition's consideration. (Paras 32-32)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that petitioners must pursue all available alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction. (Paras 28, 29)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a power generating company, challenged CERC’s orders for not granting extensions related to compliance timelines following delays in project development attributable to external factors. (Paras 2, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the petition without addressing the merits, mandating exhaustion of alternative remedies under the Electricity Act before pursuing writ jurisdiction. (Para 32)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner adequately exhausted all available legal remedies prior to filing the writ petition. (Para 32)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioner had the option to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and did not utilize this remedy, warranting dismissal of the writ petition on procedural grounds. (Paras 28-32)
Result: Writ petition dismissed, with a directive for the petitioner to pursue remedies before APTEL.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for regulatory compliance. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. cerc's orders on connectivity and compliance timelines. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. extension of project deadlines by cerc. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. judicial functions require consideration of economic impact. (Para 13 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. efficacy of remedies must be exhausted. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed for non-exhaustion of remedies. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
ORDER :
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ, order or direction, more in nature of writ or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing/setting aside to the extent challenged in the present Writ Petition, the common order dated 21.04.2024 in Petition no.291/MP/2023 and petition no.292/MP/2023 read with common order dated 30.03.2025 dated in Petition no.305/MP/2024 and 3-6/MP/2024 at Annexures-A and B,
ii) Issue writ order or direction more than in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order directing respondent No.1 to permit the petitioners to utilise the connectivity granted by the Respondent no.2 by way of letters dated 06.06.2022 and 14.06.2022 at Gadag Pooling Substation and Koppal Pooling Substation respectively, for other projects to be executed by the petitioners and any of its subsidiary/group companies in the State of Karnataka at Annexures-E1 to E.2,
iii) Issue writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 to take all necessary steps to give full effect to prayer no.(ii) above in letter and spirit etc..
2. Sri Prabhuling K Navadgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Samarth Kashyap, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner is a company incorporated under provisions of Companies Act, 2013, as a power Generating Company (GC) under Section 2 (28) of ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 ('Act', for short). Respondent no.1 was Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), while respondent no.2 - Central Transmission Utility of India Ltd., (CTU) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Power Grid Corporation of India.
3. It was submitted, in pursuance of a proposal for setting up of 1200 MW ISTS in State of Karnataka, under Tariff based competitive bidding, petitioner was successful in securing Letter of Award ('LoA', for short) on 10.03.2022, for 300 MW RE projects, one each in Koppal and Gadag Districts. For said purpose, it was granted 300 MW Stage-II connectivity for Gadag on 06.06.2022 and for Koppal on 14.06.2022. A transmission agreement for connectivity was executed on 28.06.2022. On 07.06.2022, CERC notified Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Connectivity and General Network access to Inter-state Transmission System) Regulations, 2022 ('GNA', for short) as per Annexure-F. On 01.07.2022, Petitioner submitted continuing bank guarantees for Rs.50 Lakhs and Rs.3 Crores respectively for connectivity at Koppal and Gadag in favour of CTUI.
4. On 27.10.2022, CTU informed petitioner to transition from connectivity regulations to GNA. Though on 14.11.2022, petitioner assented to same and complied with obligations under LoA, Power Purchase Agreement ('PPA', for short) required to be executed within 90 days of LoA was not executed. After 18 months of LoA, petitioner was allowed to exit without penalty vide letter dated 10.08.2023 at Annexure- D. In meanwhile, various reasons beyond petitioner's control and fact that PPA was executed, led to petitioner defaulting in timeline under LoA. On 04.09.2023, referring to legal/contractual obligations, petitioner submitted detailed representation as per Annexure-L to CTU. But, on 09.09.2023, CTU revoked 300 MW connectivity given to petitioner compelling petitioner to approach CERC in Petitions no.291/MP/2023 and no.292/MP/2023. In said petitions, there was an order staying revocation.
5. It was submitted, in its order dated 21.04.2024, CER
