The existence of an alternative appellate remedy precludes maintaining a writ petition unless exceptional circumstances justify bypassing it; KERC did not act beyond its jurisdiction when determining ongoing compensation.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) has called in question the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) in OP No. 7 of 2024, where under the KERC directed payment of Rs. 18,46,54,095/- towards compensation for generation loss to respondent No.2 - Mrs. Solitaire Powertech Private Limited (SPPL) for the period October 2021 to February 2024 and, further permitted additional compensation of Rs. 3,08,06,220/- for the period of March to July 2024.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri S Sriranga for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel Sri Sajan Poovayya for respondent No. 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the material on record.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection of maintainability. Learned Senior Counsel submits that under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the proper appellate forum is the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity ((APTEL)) and that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. 19663/2021 which was dismissed by this Court on 10.12.2021 holding that the petitioner had equally efficacious remedy and the same cause of action is now sought to be reopened, amounting to forum shopping and abuse of process. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the Supreme Court's interim order dated 07.03.2025 merely stayed execution of 75% of the APTEL decree, while allowing 25% payment subject to bank guarantee, and did not restrain the Commission from proceeding with the adjudication of subsequent periods. The KERC in compliance with the Apex Court's order directed payment of instalment subject to the outcome of the pending appeal, and therefore no contempt or excess of jurisdiction arises.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from fundamental lack of jurisdiction and violation of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 07.03.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 3458 of 2025. He contends that the KERC had become functus officio after passing the earlier orders dated 14.09.2021 and 19.12.2023, and could not reopen or extend those orders to determine compensation for subsequent periods. It is argued that once the Apex Court had stayed the operation of the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) and directed conditional payment of 25% of the amount, the KERC was precluded from adjudicating the same subject matter in any form. Learned Senior Counsel places reliance upon the following decisions:

(i) Vyshali Energy Private Limited And Others v. KPTCL and Others vs KPTCL, Writ Appeal 757 of 2021, D.D 21.09.2021 (Vyshali Energy) to contend that the rule of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, and that in cases involving pure questions of jurisdiction, arbitrariness, or violation of the fundamental rights, writ jurisdiction can be invoked.

(ii) KSRTC v. Karnataka State Transport Authority, ILR 1983 KAR 436 (KSRTC) and Renew Power Ltd. and Others vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. and Others, ILR 2019 KAR 2533 (Renew Power) and NSL Sugars Limited and Another v. Power Company of Karnataka Limited and Others, W.P. No. 55980 of 2017, D.D. 27.06.2024 (NSL Sugars Limited) to contend that this Court in similar circumstances, entertained Writ Petitions, notwithstanding the existence of statutory remedies, when the impugned orders are patently without jurisdiction or contrary to statutory provisions.

(iii) Harbanslal Sahniya and Another vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 107 (Harbanslal Sahniya) and contends that the Apex Court has carved out three recognized exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy. (1) enforcement of fundamental rig