- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10419 WP No. 34973 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34973 OF 2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. K.R. BALARAMA REDDY S/O LATE K.G. RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT KARADAGUR VILLAGE KYASAMBALLI HOBLI VIA KGF BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114. REPRESENTED BY HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. K.R.M. REDDY S/O LATE K.G. RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SWAMY M M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ENERGY DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10419 WP No. 34973 of 2015 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED NO 39, SHANTHI GRUHA BHARAT SCOUTS & GUIDES BUILDING PALACE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SMARTH KASHYAP, ADVOCATE FOR R2(VC)) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENTS IN GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. EN 62 VSC 2014 DATED 26.8.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-‘D’ TO THE WRIT PETITION IN THE ALLOTMENT OF THE SOLAR POWER PROJECTS TO PROMOTE DISTRIBUTED GENERATION BY LAND OWNING FARMERS, IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) "Issue a writ or order or direction, declaring that the proceedin99+8gs of the Respondent s in Government Order No.EN 62 VSC 2014 dated 26.08.2014 vide - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10419 WP No. 34973 of 2015 Annexure-‘D’ to the writ petition in the allotment of the solar power projects to promote distributed generation by Land owning Farmers, is illegal and unconstitutional; b) Further be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent s to consider the representations dated 20.10.2014, 10.04.2015 and 25.06.2015 vide Annexure – ‘K’, ‘Ka’, ‘K22’, ‘L’ and ‘M’ respectively and grant 3 MW Solar Power Project in favour of the petitioner; c) Further be pleased to grant any other relief or reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.39/P3, measuring 2 acres situated at Gollaguravanahalli of Kysamballi Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District. Solar Policy 2014-15 to 2021-22 has been introduced on 22.05.2024 by the 1st respondent inviting applications by online bidding for setting up 1 to 3 MW solar power plants. The petitioner was qualified to file an application on account of being a farmer having more than 5 acres. The petitioner sought to bid for the same in terms of the State Policy, however, the petitioner was not the one of the earliest submitters, contending that the allotment was on first come first serve basis application to limited number as specified, he was not given a solar - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10419 WP No. 34973 of 2015 power project. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted various representations on 20.10.2014, 10.04.2015 and 25.06.2015 at Annexures-K, K1, K2, L and M, respectively which not having been considered, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Sri. Swamy M.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is qualified for all the requirements mainly being a farmer having a land measuring 5 acres in extent and that the petitioner was willing to set up a solar power plant of more than 3 MW. All the farmers were called upon to participate through online bidding using a computer methodology. The petitioner did not know how to do that and as such could not submit it within time. 4. The petitioner had applied under Right to Information (RTI) and secured information. He submits that the bidding process had commenced at 11.00 am. The entire process was completed by 11:07:25 seconds within a period of seven and half minutes, 295 applications were received and processed. He submitted that it is not reasonably acceptable that so many applications could - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10419 WP No. 34973 of 2015 have been filed within such a short period of time. He further submits that many of the applications were filed from the very same IP address as per the information received under RTI in terms of Annexure-G. He therefore submits that the online bidding and the consideration thereof is not in accordance with law and there is something fishy inasmuch as several applications have been filed for the same IP address. On the above grounds he submits that the reliefs which have been sought for are required to be granted. 5. Heard Sri. M.M. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition papers. 6. The policy which has been formulated by the State in terms of the Government Order dated 22.05.2014 at Annexure-B, in terms of Clause-14 thereof, ESCOM wise allotment has to be made on a first-come-first-serve basis on the basis of date and time of online submission of the application subject to eligibility. Thereafter, list of eligible applicants was to be prepared as per seniority and the allotment has to be made. Even as per the documents produced by the petitioner himself at - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10419 WP No. 34973 of 2015 Annexure-H, there are 295 applicants who have applied from 11:00:25 to 11:06:34 i.e., within a period of 6 minutes 09 seconds, there were 295 applicants who had submitted their applications. 7. The statement which has been produced at Annexure-H indicates the name and address of the persons, survey number, capacity applied (MW), login time and entered time. The contention that submission of such details could not be entered in such a short time cannot be accepted for the reason that the persons who have applied for were also farmers and the entries which are required to be made are only as regards the name of ESCOM, the details of the applicants, name, contact number, mobile number, e-mail ID. The location of the project namely District, Taluk, Hobli, Survey Number, extent of Area and the proposed capacity apart from the details of the fee which has been remitted in terms of amount, DD number and Bank were to be furnished. These details have been entered by all the other applicants, numbering about 295 within the time aforesaid. The petitioner and others knowing fully well - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10419 WP No. 34973 of 2015 that it was on a first-come-first-serve basis and there was an online bidding which was introduced by the respondents, the petitioner cannot contend that the petitioner could not submit details within the time because he has not conversant with the use of computers. The other farmers who have applied have entered the details within time and their applications have been considered and allotment has been made. 8. Insofar as the second contention that many of the applications were made from the very same IP address, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Sl.Nos. 1, 3, 6, 35, 53 and 81 contending that there is a common IP address of 51.93.31.66 from which, all those applications have been made. 9. A perusal of the e-mail and IP address would indicate that many of the applications were made by the very same persons and secondly, all of them are residing at Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District. Therefore, not much can be made out as regards common IP address, since all of them resided in the very same Taluk. It is found that the service provider is one and the same center to file - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10419 WP No. 34973 of 2015 their applications. The commonality of the IP address cannot be a ground to contend that there is something wrong in the procedure adopted by the respondents. More so, when learned counsel for respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the process has been conducted through the National Informatics Centre (NIC) and a Certificate has been issued by the NIC stating that all the procedures have been followed properly and the systems were in operation in a proper manner as per Annexure-R5: being a security test report. Thus, this contention of the petitioner would also not be sustainable. 10. On enquiry with the learned counsel for the respondents if there are any other policies which have been introduced, where the petitioner would apply for setting up of a solar plant, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there has been a policy which has been introduced in the year 2022 under which, the petitioner can submit his application which can be considered as per the requirement thereof. 11. In that view of the matter, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed reserving liberty to the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10419 WP No. 34973 of 2015 petitioner to file a fresh application for setting up of a fresh solar plant. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15