IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.50173/2019 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
TANIVI SOLAR PRIVATE LIMITED 302, 3RD FLOOR, ORION BUILDING KOREGAON ROAD PUNE-411001 [REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY]. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADV.) AND:
1. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED No.29, KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK ROAD VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE MYSURU-570019.
[REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR] 2. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION No.16, C-1, MILLERS BED AREA VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560052 [REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN] 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY VIKAS SOUDHA, Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 [REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY]. …RESPONDENTS (BY Ms. PADMAVATHI SURESH UTTUR, ADV. FOR R-1; Mr. B.N.PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-2;
Ms. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA. FOR R-3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28TH JUNE, 2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2 IN O.P.NO.132/2017 [ANNEXURE-A].
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in OP.No.132/2017.
2. The petitioner claims to be the power purchase agreement holder with the respondent No.1, approved by the respondent No.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited [KPTCL] granted Regular Evacuation Scheme Approval to the petitioner’s project subject to certain terms and conditions which included construction of 11 KV overhead line for a distance of 1.5 km from the petitioner’s generating station to 110/33- KV Sub-station at Siriguppa with Mysore Electrical Industries Limited [MEIL] make Switchgear [800A] Terminal Bay [BP Structure] along with required match control equipment as per the specification to be approved by KPTCL. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the representation submitted for extension of time for execution of project with the first respondent has not been properly considered resulting in the order impugned.
3. It is not in dispute that the issue involved herein is a mixed question of facts and law. Hence, the writ petition filed without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Statute cannot be entertained.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal available under the Statute. If such an appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority on merits, in accordance with law, without objecting to the period of limitation.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.