Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2002
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
M/s Soltown Infra Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Central Transmission Utility Of India Ltd. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9702/2024
Decided on : 07-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Balia Sr. Adv. Asst by Mr. Aditya Kumar Singh Mr. Devendra Khatri Ms. Anukriti Jain Mr. Ashok Choudhary
For the Respondent: Mr. Alok Shankar Mr. Falgun Buch with Mr. Gopal Kishan Chhangani
The court upheld the authority of the Central Transmission Utility to blacklist a firm for fraudulent practices, confirming the need for compliance with regulatory standards in contractual obligations.
Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Blacklisting of firms for fraudulent practices - The court upheld the blacklisting of the petitioner firm for three years after finding deliberate misrepresentations in documents submitted for connectivity approval. The actions of the Central Transmission Utility were deemed necessary to uphold regulatory integrity. (Paras 1, 26)
(B) Fair hearing - The firm was given multiple opportunities to respond to allegations, including personal hearings, which were deemed sufficient. (Paras 24, 25)
(C) Proportionality of administrative actions - The court found the blacklisting proportional to the misconduct, as the petitioner admitted errors that constituted fraud, and hence justified the CTU's action. (Paras 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for connectivity to develop a Solar Park but was blacklisted for three years due to fraudulent submissions and misrepresentations regarding land documents after complaints were made. The firm later withdrew requests for connectivity upon being notified of the discrepancies.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the CTU was justified in blacklisting the firm based on clear evidence of fraud and failure to comply with contractual obligations, confirming the validity of the blacklisting action taken against the petitioner-firm.
Issues: Main issues included whether the CTU had the authority to blacklist the firm post-agreement termination and issues surrounding the concept of double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that blacklisting for fraud is a necessary action to maintain regulatory integrity and contractual obligations and affirmed that adequate opportunity was provided to the petioner-firm before arriving at the decision.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Order :
REKHA BORANA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of letter/communication date 23.02.2023 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioner-firm had been black-listed from applying for and obtaining any connectivity or open access with Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘CTU/Nodal Agency’) for a period of three years.
2. The facts as pleaded in the writ petition and the reply to the writ petition, in brief, are as under:
(i) The petitioner firm being authorized by the Government of Rajasthan to develop Solar Park in the State of Rajasthan, applied for Stage I connectivity for 600 MWs and 1200 MWs on 12.10.2021 and 30.11.2021 respectively. The Stage I connectivity as applied for was granted to the petitioner-firm vide intimation dated 21.12.2021 and 22.01.2022.
(ii) Clause 9.2.2 of Connectivity Procedure provides for conditions to be complied with for the grant of Stage II connectivity. The petitioner-firm finding itself eligible to apply for Stage II connectivity, submitted three applications for 500 MWs, 600 MWs and 700 MWs for the purpose. The said Stage II connectivity as applied for was granted to the petitioner- firm on 07.03.2022 vide three different intimation letters to the said effect. All the said applications were granted qua the ISTS sub-station at Bikaner II PS.
(iii) The transmission agreements to the effect were also executed between the parties on 12.04.2022 (Annexure-10).
(iv) Anonymous complaints dated 14.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 were received by the respondent CTU/Nodal Agency pertaining to the land documents as submitted by the petitioner-firm. A detailed enquiry was made by the respondent CTU on the said complaints and it was prima facie found that deliberate misrepresentations were made and misleading documents were submitted by the petitioner-firm to CTU to approve the satisfaction of the conditions for grant of Stage II connectivity in terms of Clause 9.2.2, which amounted to fraud.
(v) Show cause notice dated 04.08.2022 was hence issued to the petitioner-firm calling upon to explain the deliberate misrepresentation. Petitioner-firm prayed for extension of time to file reply to the said notice and also for a personal hearing. Both the said requests were acceded to and the petitioner-firm was granted a personal hearing on 29.08.2022.
(vi) However, the firm failed to satisfactorily explain the infirmities in the applications as submitted by it for grant of Stage II connectivity and admitted the mistakes on its part. Ultimately, vide letter dated 30.08.2022, the firm withdrew the Stage II connectivity as awarded to it, unconditionally.
(vii) Acting upon the request of the petitioner-firm for unconditional withdrawal, vide letter dated 31.08.2022, CTU/Nodal Agency revoked the connectivity granted to the petitioner-firm cumulatively for 1800 MWs and further terminated the transmission agreements dated 12.04.2022 with immediate effect. Further, the bank guarantee as submitted by the firm was also encashed by CTU and was credited to the Transmission Charges Pool (POC pool) on 11.09.2022.
(viii) The above revocation and termination was made by CTU/Nodal Agency reserving its right with regard to the infirmities pointed out in its earlier communication.
(ix) In pursuance to the right reserved, CTU/Nodal Agency proceeded on to act further and after finding the reply/defence as furnished/raised by the petitioner-firm to show cause notice dated 04.08.2022, to be unsatisfactory held that the petitioner-firm committed a fraud. Consequently, vide order impugned dated 23.03.2023, it proceeded on to black-list the petitioner-firm for a period of three years.
3. It is the above order dated 23.03.2023 which is under challenge in the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds:
(i) The CTU being only a nodal agency has no authority to blacklist the firm. It could only have acted in terms of the conditions of the agreement and that having alre
