IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.13866/2018 c/w W.P.No.13867/2018 AND W.P.No.13868/2018 (GM–KEB) IN W.P.No.13866/2018:
BETWEEN:
SURYA ENERGY PHOTO VOLTAIC INDIA PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, C-402, FOURTH FLOOR, TOWER C, THE MILLENIA, NO.1 & 2, MURPHY ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.ANURADHA AGNIHOTRI, ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ACTING THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ROOM NO.240, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001, KARNATAKA, INDIA REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY 2. HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPNAY LIMITED ACTING THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAVANAGAR, P.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 025, KARNATAKA 3. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION ACTING THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, NO.9/2, 6TH & 7TH FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT.M.JYOTHI, AGA FOR R-1; SRI S.SRIRANGA, ADV. FOR R-2; SRI B.N.PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-3.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE GoK'S DIRECTIONS DATED 27.10.2017 AND 15.11.2017 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ANNEXED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-A1 TO A2, INSOFAR AS IT LIMITS ITS APPLICABILITY TO PROJECTS COMMISSIONED AS ON 31.03.2017.
IN W.P.No.13867/2018:
BETWEEN:
SOLAR FIELDS ENERGY PHOTO VOLTAIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, C-402, FOURTH FLOOR, TOWER C, THE MILLENIA, NO.1 & 2, MURPHY ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.ANURADHA AGNIHOTRI, ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ACTING THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ROOM NO.240, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001, KARNATAKA, INDIA REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY 2. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPNAY LIMITED ACTING THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, GULBARGA MAIN ROAD, GULBARGA-585 510, KARNATAKA 3. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION ACTING THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, NO.9/2, 6TH & 7TH FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT.M.JYOTHI, AGA FOR R-1; SRI S.SRIRANGA, ADV. FOR R-2; SRI B.N.PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-3.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE GoK'S DIRECTIONS DATED 27.10.2017 AND 15.11.2017 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ANNEXED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-A1 TO A2, INSOFAR AS IT LIMITS ITS APPLICABILITY TO PROJECTS COMMISSIONED AS ON 31.03.2017.
IN W.P.No.13868/2018:
BETWEEN:
RAVI URJA ENERGY INDIA PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, C-402, FOURTH FLOOR, TOWER C, THE MILLENIA, No.1 & 2, MURPHY ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.ANURADHA AGNIHOTRI, ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ACTING THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ROOM NO.240, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001, KARNATAKA, INDIA REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY 2. HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPNAY LIMITED ACTING THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAVANAGAR, P.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 025, KARNATAKA 3. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION ACTING THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, NO.9/2, 6TH & 7TH FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT.M.JYOTHI, AGA FOR R-1; SRI S.SRIRANGA, ADV. FOR R-2; SRI B.N.PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-3.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE GoK'S DIRECTIONS DATED 27.10.2017 AND 15.11.2017 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ANNEXUED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-A1 TO A2, INSOFAR AS IT LIMITS ITS APPLICABILITY TO PROJECTS COMMISSIONED AS ON 31.03.2017.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED, ARE COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been considered together and are taken up for final disposal by this common order.
2. The petitioner has challenged the directions issued by the Government of Karnataka dated 27.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 in so far as it limits its applicability to projects commissioned as on 31.03.2017 inter alia challenging the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission [KERC] in so far as the KERC order excluding wind power projects in respect of which PPAs have already been signed and pending approval before the KERC from the applicability of tariff of Rs.4.5/KWH and further to direct the KERC to approve the petitioner’s PPA at a tariff of Rs.4.5 per KW.
3. The petitioner is a generating company engaged in the business of renewable energy. The petitioner is currently in the process of setting up a 129MW Wind Power Projects at Kakamari, Kilaridoddi, Telsang, Aigali, Ramatith, Phadatarwadi and Bannur villages in Athani Taluk of District Belagavi.
4. The KERC by way of its order dated 10.10.2013 determined the generic tariff for wind projects for a fixed control period i.e., between 10.10.2013 to 09.08.2018 at Rs.4.5 per KW. However, the KERC revised the said tariff of Rs.4.5 per KW to Rs.3.74 per KW applicable to generating companies. Further the Government of Karnataka issued directions that the PPAs for which projects were commissioned by 31.03.2017, the tariff fixed by the KERC on 10.10.2013 would be applicable.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the power purchase agreement [PPA] dated 17.04.2017 with the respondent No.2 for supply of 129MW of power generated from the project was entered into. In terms of Article 5.1 of the said PPA, respondent No.2 was required to pay for the delivered energy to the petitioner’s company at the rate of Rs.4.5 per KW. However, in May 2017, the petitioner was informed that the KERC had returned the PPA to respondent No.2 without approving the same. The KERC passed an order on 08.02.2018 directing that all future procurement of wind power must be through competitive bidding in accordance with the Ministry of Power’s Guidelines for Tariff Based Competitive Bidding Process for Procurement of Power From Grid Connected Wind Power Projects. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Learned Senior counsel Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, representing the learned counsel for the petitioner on record submitted that the PPA was executed by the respondent No.2 on 17.04.2017 and the same was submitted for approval before the KERC. It is on the directions issued by the Government of Karnataka restricting the applicability of the tariff of Rs.4.5 per KW only to wind power projects which were commissioned up to 31.03.2017 and prescribing a tariff of Rs.3.74 per KW for PPAs whose projects will be commissioned by 31.03.2018, PPA submitted before the KERC has been returned sans approval. It was argued that the KERC order and the directions issued by the Government of Karnataka have rendered the timelines set-forth in the PPA impossible to adhere to, and frustrated the intention of the parties. It was ensured in the PPA in as much as the commissioning of the projects by April 2018 keeping in mind the control period between 10.10.2013 and 09.10.2018. The KERC order and the directions of the Government of Karnataka dislodged the petitioner’s legitimate expectation of receiving a tariff of Rs.4.5 per KW.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the determination of tariff is in the purview of KERC. The Commission in modification of the order dated 10.10.2013, determined the wind tariff for wind power projects at Rs.4.5 per KW on 24.02.2015 for projects established during the control period. Subsequently it was re-determined by Rs.3.74 per KW in modification of the earlier order. KERC is the approving authority for the PPA taking into consideration of the various aspects in determining the tariff, exercising the provisions of Section 86[2] of the Electricity Act, 2003 ['Act' for short] KERC requested the State Government to direct all the ESCOMS not to enter any fresh PPAs with Wind Power Projects until further review by the Commission. Further KERC has returned the PPAs without approval on 08.05.2017. In such circumstances, in the interest of wind power developers in the state, the Government of Karnataka vide letters dated 23.06.2017 and 28.08.2017 requested the KERC to reconsider the PPAs of wind power projects. There was no response from the KERC. Hence the State Government exercising the powers conferred under Section 108 of the Act, issued directions vide G.O.No.93 VSC 2017 dated 27.10.2017 to KERC to approve the projects which were commissioned before 31.03.2017 at Rs.4.5 per KW and for the projects which will be commissioned before 31.03.2018 at the prevailing KERC tariff i.e., Rs.3.74 per KW subject to certain conditions. The original facilitation letter to the petitioner project was issued on 22.09.2012 and the Government order was issued on 02.08.2013. The petitioner has not shown any interest in commissioning the project. Even though the Government order for allotment of project was issued during 2013, the petitioner has submitted the request for signing the PPA in the year 2017. The petitioner has neither commissioned the project nor came forward to complete the projects. Hence, the petitioner’s PPA are out of ambit of the Government order. The PPA are applicable/valid only after the approval by KERC. Indisputedly, the petitioner’s PPA was not approved by KERC.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that the petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioners have not availed the alternative remedy of appeal available under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner has executed the PPA on 17.4.2017 with respondent No.2 for sale of power from its proposed wind power plants at Vijayapura District. The tariff of Rs.4.50 per unit was agreed between the parties as per the then prevailing Generic Tariff Order dated 24.02.2015. However, the said PPA was not approved by the KERC. It was observed that all future wind procurement should be made only through competitive bidding and returned the PPA. In the meanwhile, KERC in modification of its Generic Tariff Order dated 24.2.2015, passed the Generic Tariff Order dated 04.09.2017 determining tariff for wind power projects at Rs.3.74 per unit and the same was made applicable to the Wind Power Projects which have entered into the PPAs with any ESCOM prior to the date of the order. Thereafter, Government of Karnataka had issued directions to the KERC under Section 108 of the Act to approve the Power Purchase Agreements of Wind Power Generators at tariff of Rs.4.50 per unit with regard to the projects that were commissioned before 31.03.2017. Further, the Government directed KERC to approve the Projects commissioned after 31.03.2017 at tariff of Rs.3.74 per unit subject to furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.20 lakhs for each MW. The PPA not being approved by KERC, which is mandatory the petitioner has no locus to seek for the enforcement of PPA with the Generic Tariff of Rs.4.50 per unit. Accordingly seeks for dismissal of the writ petitions. Learned counsel argued that Section 63 of the Act contemplates bidding for determination of the tariff. Now the scenario has been changed in the State of Karnataka owing to availability of excess renewable energy.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioners are under the misconception inasmuch as the third respondent Commission acted in pursuance of the directions of the Government of Karnataka dated 27.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 while approving certain PPA’s which had been commissioned on or before 31.03.2017. It was argued that it is not merely under directions of the Government of Karnataka, the Commission has approved those PPA’s but after taking into consideration the relevant factors and giving valid reasons. Wind Projects which entered into PPA’s with ESCOMS but not approved by the Commission were excluded from the applicability of the Generic Tariff Order dated 10.10.2017 read with Tariff Order dated 24.02.2015. It was argued that PPA’s are sacrosanct subject to approval by KERC. The Generic tariff or renewable energy sources determined by the Commission is in the nature of standing offer to a project developer. Regulation 21 of the KERC [Conditions of License to BESCOMS] Regulations 2004 ['Regulation 2004’ for short] contemplates for purchase of renewable energy, entered into PPA and obtained the approval from the Commission for such PPA. A PPA is enforceable only if it is approved by the Commission. Any activity undertaking prior to such approval by either party is at their own risk. The Commission taking into account the consumer interest qua the surplus availability of the renewable energy has revised the tariff but providing reasons.
10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
11. The crux of the controversy relates to the applicability of tariff of Rs.4.50 based on the PPA entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 but not approved by the KERC – Respondent No.3.
12. Adverting to the above, it is apt to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 61 of the Act deals with Tariff Regulations and Section 62 of the Act contemplates the Determination of Tariff. Section 63 contemplates Determination of Tariff by Bidding Process.
13. Section 86 of the Act provides for the functions of the State Commission which reads thus:
“86. Functions of State Commission. – (1) The State Commission shall discharge the following functions, namely: -
(a) determine the tariff for generation, supply, transmission and wheeling of electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail, as the case may be, within the State:
Provided that where open access has been permitted to a category of consumers under section 42, the State Commission shall determine only the wheeling charges and surcharge thereon, if any, for the said category of consumers;
(b) regulate electricity purchase and procurement process of distribution licensees including the price at which electricity shall be procured from the generating companies or licensees or from The Electricity Act, 2003 other sources through agreements for purchase of power for distribution and supply within the State;
(c) facilitate intra-State transmission and wheeling of electricity;
(d) issue licences to persons seeking to act as transmission licensees, distribution licensees and electricity traders with respect to their operations within the State;
(e) promote co-generation and generation of electricity from renewable sources of energy by providing suitable measures for connectivity with the grid and sale of electricity to any person, and also specify, for purchase of electricity from such sources, a percentage of the total consumption of electricity in the area of a distribution licensee;
(f) adjudicate upon the disputes between the licensees, and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration;
(g) levy fee for the purposes of this Act;
(h) specify State Grid Code consistent with the Grid Code specified under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 79;
(i) specify or enforce standards with respect to quality, continuity and reliability of service by licensees;
(j) fix the trading margin in the intra- State trading of electricity, if considered, necessary; and (k) discharge such other functions as may be assigned to it under this Act.
(2) The State Commission shall advise the State Government on all or any of the following matters, namely :-
(i) promotion of competition, efficiency and economy in activities of the electricity industry;
(ii) promotion of investment in electricity industry;
(iii) reorganization and restructuring of electricity industry in the State;
(iv) matters concerning generation, transmission, distribution and trading of electricity or any other matter referred to the State Commission by that Government.
(3) The State Commission shall ensure transparency while exercising its powers and discharging its functions.
(4) In discharge of its functions, the State Commission shall be guided by the National Electricity Policy, National Electricity Plan and tariff policy published under section 3.”
14. It is thus clear that fixation of tariff is a statutory function and it is the sole prerogative of the Commission. The approval by Commission to PPA is sine quo non for coming into force as a concluded contract which otherwise is not enforceable in the eye of law. The Regulation 3 of the KERC [Procurement of Energy from Renewable Sources] Regulations 2011 provides that the said Regulation shall apply to distribution licensees operating in the State of Karnataka. Regulation 4 deals with the quantum of purchase in the electricity from renewable sources of energy. Regulation 9 deals with the determination of tariff for electricity from renewable sources of energy which makes it clear that the Commission may determine at any time the tariff for purchase of electricity from renewable sources of energy by distribution licensees either suo motu or an application either by generator or by Distribution Licensee. Second proviso thereof provides that the Commission shall adopt the tariff which has been arrived at to a transparent process of bidding in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government under Section 63 of the Act. Based on these Regulations as well as the discussion paper “Revision of Generic Tariff for wind power project for mandatory procurement of wind power through competitive bidding” and the Tariff Policy 2016, the exact wind power generating capacity created in the State and the contracted quantum of wind power by the distribution licensees to meet their Renewable Power Purchase Obligations [RPOs] vis-à-vis the general demand, the Mandatory procurement of wind power through competitive bidding is ordered by the Commission by its order dated 08.02.2018.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tata Power Co. Ltd., V/s. Reliance Energy Ltd.1 while interpreting Section 86, has observed thus:
1 [2009] 16 SCC 659 “108. A generating company, if the liberalization and privatization policy is to be given effect to, must be held to be free to enter into an agreement and in particular long term agreement with the distribution agency, terms and conditions of such an agreement, however, are not unregulated. Such an agreement is subject to grant of approval by the Commission. The Commission has a duty to check if the allocation of power is reasonable. If the terms and conditions relating to quantity, price, mode of supply the need of the distributing agency vis-`- vis the consumer, keeping in view its long term need are not found to be reasonable, approval may not be granted.
111. Section 86(1)(b) provides for regulation of electricity purchase and procurement process of distribution licensees. In respect of generation its function is to determine, the tariff for generation as also in relation to supply; transmission and wheeling of electricity. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 86 provides to regulate electricity purchase and procurement process of distribution licensees including the price at which the electricity shall be procured from the generating companies or licenses or from other sources through agreements. As a part of the regulation it can also adjudicate upon disputes between the licensees and generating companies in regard to the implementation, application or interpretation of the provisions of the said agreement.”
[Emphasis supplied} 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited.2, has held that tariff means a schedule of standard/prices or charges provided to the category or categories for pronouncement by the licensee from the generating company, wholesale or bulk or retail of the various categories of the consumers. In para 36, it is observed thus:
“36. Under Regulation 82, the Commission has powers to deal with any matter or exercise any power under the Act for which no Regulations are framed meaning thereby where something is expressly provided in the Act, the Commission has to deal with it only in accordance with the manner prescribed in the Act. The only leeway available to the Commission is only when the Regulations on proceedings are silent on a specific issue. In other words, in case a specific subject or exercise of power by the Commission on a specific issue is otherwise provided under the Act or Rules, the same has to be exercised by the Commission only taking recourse to that power and in no other manner. To illustrate further, there cannot be any exercise of the inherent power for dealing with any matter which is otherwise specifically provided under the Act. The exercise of power which has the effect of amending the PPA by varying the tariff can only be done as per statutory provisions and not under 2 [2017] 16 SCC 498 the inherent power referred to in Regulations 80 to 82. In other words there cannot be any exercise of inherent power by the Commission on an issue which is otherwise dealt with or provided for in the Act or Rules.”
17. The reasons assigned by the Commission for not approving the PPA in terms of the letter dated 02.05.2017 reads thus-
“The Commission has observed that, the ESCOMs are continuing to enter into PPAs and forwarding the same to the Commission for approval, despite fulfilling their RPO targets. Considering the anticipated energy requirement in the State, the increased drawal of RE power would result in backing down of the new Thermal Power Station (TPS) which have been commissioned in the State. This would result in payment of fixed cost without drawing the energy from such TPS. Thus, the drawal of further RE energy beyond the RPO requirement, would result in additional tariff burden to the consumers.
The Commission has also observed that, the tariff of the wind projects across the country has come down significantly. The ESCOMs having over achieved the non-solar RPO, further capacity addition through signing of wind project-
PPAs at the existing generic tariff, is not sustainable. Further, some of the ESCOMs have not been paying their current power purchase dues to the generators promptly. Hence, in the interest of consumers and financial health of the ESCOMs, all future procurements should be made only through competitive bidding, to meet the RPO.
Under the above circumstances, the Commission is unable to approve the PPAs in respect of Wind Power Projects, submitted by, the GESCOM. The wind generators are at liberty to sell the power in the market. In case, there is a shortfall in RPO compliance, in future, the GESCOM may procure the power through competitive reverse bidding, through the KREDL, keeping the tariff determined by the Commission, as the ceiling price.
I am directed to return following the three number of PPAs of Wind Power Projects for a total capacity of 270 MW, which were submitted for approval of the Commission, along with DDs.”
18. The relevant portion of the letter of the commission dated 06.02.2018 is quoted hereunder:
The Commission observes that, the PPAs re-submitted by the HESCOM and GESCOM do not fall under the ambit of the above Government Order/Letter because as per these PPAs. The time for completion of the respective projects is indicated as two years and the tariff is indicated as Rs.4.50 per unit, which is not applicable now to these projects. The Commission is therefore unable to approve these PPAs. In the circumstances, I am directed to return the PPAs of Wind Power Projects along with DDs and relevant documents to the concerned ESCOMS and bring the matter to the kind notice of the Government.”
19. Regulation 21 of the Regulation 2004 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
“21. Power Procurement Procedure 21.1 The Licensee shall in all circumstances purchase electrical capacity and/or energy in an efficient and economical manner under a transparent procurement process as approved by the Commission and following the guidelines issued by the Commission from time to time relating to preparation of load forecasts, power procurement plan and power procurement procedure.
21.2 The Licensee shall not purchase electrical capacity and/or energy without an authorization granted by the Commission under the terms of condition 21.1 except in the case of short duration purchases for less than 6 months.
21.3 An authorization required under condition 21.2 shall be granted when the Licensee has demonstrated to the Commission's satisfaction that:
(a) xxxxxx (b) xxxxxx 21.4 xxxxx Article 2.1 of PPA reads thus:
“2.1 Conditions Precedent:
The obligations of HESCOM and the Company under this Agreement are conditional upon the occurrence of the following in full:
[a] The Company shall have been granted and received all permits, clearances and approvals [whether statutory or otherwise] as are required to execute and operate the Project [As specifically listed out in Schedule 4] [hereinafter referred to as “Approvals”]”
20. The PPA necessarily requires approval by the Commission in terms of Section 86[1][b] of the Act read with Regulation 21 of the Regulation 2004 and Article 2.1 of PPA. Approval by the Commission shall be granted upon examining the process of procurement having regard to the said Regulation.
21. The order of this Court in W.P.Nos.23158- 23162/2018 and batch of matters is of no assistance to the petitioner for the reason that the said order was rendered in the context of withdrawal of exemption/concession of tariff on wheeling and banking charges. The petitioner having not availed the facilitation letter 22.9.2012 and the Government order dated 2.8.2013 but strangely has submitted the request for signing of the PPA in the year 2017. The petitioner has neither commissioned the project nor came forward to complete the project within a reasonable time. No statutory obligation flows from the PPA unless the same is approved by the Commission. The reasons by the Commission for non approval of the agreement that exclusion of PPA with wind generators for power above the RPO obligation will lead to backing down of thermal power stations and same will lead to additional financial burden that has to be passed on to the consumers of the State and the decision to approve the PPA commissioned on or before 31.03.2017 was taken only to facilitate ESCOMS to comply with their RPO obligations cannot be faulted with. In the absence of valid PPA, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned orders. The time for completion of the respective projects indicated as two years with the tariff of Rs.4.50 as per the PPA not being adhered to, the claim of the petitioner to direct the commission for approval of PPA with the tariff rate of Rs.4.50 or the revised rate of Rs.3.74 runs contrary to Section 63 of the Act and Regulation 9 of the Regulations, 2011.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are bereft of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NC/Dvr: