-1- THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.35002 OF 2024 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.21533 OF 2024 (GM-RES) IN WP 35002/2024 BETWEEN 1. M/S. RAYS POWER INFRA LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1ST, 21 EVERSHINE MALL, NORTH METER CABIN 1 MALAD WEST MUMBAI 400064 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR SANNA THIPPESWAMY LEGAL MANAGER. 2. RAYSALFA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 605, 6TH FLOOR, MANJUSHA BUILDING, 57 NEHRU PLACE DELHI, SOUTH DELHI-110019 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR SANNA THIPPESWAMY 3. DADUR SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT D-43, JANPATH, SHYAM NAGAR, JAIPUR-302019 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR SANNA THIPPESWAMY 4. NILAJ SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER -2- THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT P.NO.65, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME ASHOK NAGAR, JAIPUR-302001 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY 5. ANNIGERI SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME ASHOK NAGAR, JAIPUR-302001 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY 6. SIRA SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 65, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME ASHOK NAGAR, JAIPUR-302001 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GURUDAS S KANNUR., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHIVA KUMAR.C., ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 REP BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT. 2 . KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LTD GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING NO.6/13/1 10TH BLOCK 2ND STAGE NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE 560072 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3 . CENTRAL TRANSMISSION UTILITY OF INDIA LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.2 SECTOR 29 NEAR IFFCO CHOWK METRO STATION GURAGON 122 001 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. -3- 4 . 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF NEW AND RENEWABLE ENERGY BLOCK 14 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 110 003. ACME SOLAR HOLDINGS LTD., NO.152, SECTOR 44, GURGAON, HARYANA-122002 AMPIN ENERGY UTILITY PRIVATE LTD., AMPIN ENERGY C & I FOURTEEN PVT. LTD., AMPIN ENERGY C & I TWENTYEIGHT PVT. LTD., AMPIN ENERGY C & I TWENTYNINE PVT. LTD., ALL HAVING OFFICE AT ‘ORBIS’, 2ND CROSS RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025. ESSAR RENEWABLES LIMITED ESSAR HOUSE, 11 K.K.MARG, MAHALAKSHMI, HAJI ALI, MUMBAI-400034. ……RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.REBUEN JACOB, AAG FOR SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 SRI. PIYUSH KUMAR JAIN D., ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. S.S.NAGANAD., SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT.SUMANA NAGANAD., ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI. K. ARAVIND KAMATH., ASG A/W SMT. SADHANA S DESAI., ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. ARYAMAN GHULATI, PRITHU CHAWLA & SMT. RASHMI VAISH., ADVOCATES FOR R5 SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. ROHAN SACHDEVA & SRI. SUDHEESH S KESARKAR., ADVOCATES FOR R6 TO R9 SRI. DEEP RAO PALEPU A/W SRI. SUDHEESH S KESARKAR., ADVOCATES FOR R10) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, OR DIRECTION MORE IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMAUS TO DIRECT THE R1 &/OR R2 FORTHWITH GRANT GNA AUTHORIZATION FOR RE PARK IN TERMS OF REGULATION 5.8(vii)(A) OF GNA REGULATIONS, 2002 (AS AMMENDED) WITHOUT INSISITNG GO AS -4- PRESCRIBED FORMAT TO THE PETITIONERS WITHIN A FIXED TIME PERIODS OF TWO WEEKS AND ETC. IN WP 21533 OF 2024 BETWEEN M/S. RAYS POWER INFRA LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1ST, 21 EVERSHINE MALL, NORTH METER CABIN 1 MALAD WEST MUMBAI 400064 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR SANNA THIPPESWAMY ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GURUDAS S KANNUR., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHIVA KUMAR.C., ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 REP BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT. 2 . KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LTD GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING NO.6/13/1 10TH BLOCK 2ND STAGE NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE 560072 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3 . CENTRAL TRANSMISSION UTILITY OF INDIA LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.2 SECTOR 29 NEAR IFFCO CHOWK METRO STATION GURGAON 122 001 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4 . UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF NEW AND RENEWABLE ENERGY -5- 5 . 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. BLOCK 14 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 110 003 CENTRAL ELECRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION 6TH 7TH & 8TH FLOORS, TOWER B, WORLD TRADE CENTRE NAUROJI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110029. ACME SOLAR HOLDINGS LTD., NO.152, SECTOR 44, GURGAON, HARYANA-122002 AMPIN ENERGY UTILITY PRIVATE LTD., AMPIN ENERGY C & I FOURTEEN PVT. LTD., AMPIN ENERGY C & I TWENTYEIGHT PVT. LTD., AMPIN ENERGY C & I TWENTYNINE PVT. LTD., ALL HAVING OFFICE AT ‘ORBIS’, 2ND CROSS RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025. ESSAR RENEWABLES LIMITED ESSAR HOUSE, 11 K.K.MARG, MAHALAKSHMI, HAJI ALI, MUMBAI-400034. ……RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.REBUEN JACOB, AAG FOR SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 SRI. PIYUSH KUMAR JAIN D., ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. S.S.NAGANAD., SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT.SUMANA NAGANAD., ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI. K. ARAVIND KAMATH., ASG A/W SMT. SADHANA S DESAI., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5 SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. ARYAMAN GHULATI, PRITHU CHAWLA & SMT. RASHMI VAISH., ADVOCATES FOR R6 SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. ROHAN SACHDEVA & SRI. SUDHEESH S KESARKAR., ADVOCATES R7 TO R10 SRI. DEEP RAO PALEPU A/W SRI. SUDHEESH S KESARKAR., ADVOCATES FOR R11) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, OR -6- DIRECTION MORE IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMAUS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT THE R1 &/OR R2 HAS/HAVE AN INHERINT POWER TO ISSUE GNA AUTHORIZATION AS REQUIRED UNDER REGULATION 5.8(vii)(A) OF GNA REGULATIONS, 2002 (AS AMMENDED) AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS) The grievances of the petitioners in both these writ petitions being common and the respondents against whom directions are sought at the hands of the petitioners also being common, therefore, these two writ petitions were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioner No.1 through its subsidiaries/Special Purpose Vehicles applied to the third respondent-Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘CTUIL’ for short) for connectivity, for establishing solar power parks, responding to the notification published by the CTUIL in its website, during the month of August 2024. Two sets of applications were filed in the name of three -7- subsidiaries of the petitioners, seeking connectivity at Tumkur-II Sub-station for 300 MW and 290 MW respectively while also seeking connectivity at Ballari sub-station for 300 MW. Problems arose for the petitioners in seeking authorization at the hands of the Government of Karnataka which is a requirement in terms of regulation 5.8 (vii) (a) of the General Network Access Regulations, 2022 (for short ‘GNA Regulations’) notified by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short ‘CERC’). 3. The grievance of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that the prescription of securing an authorization at the hands of the State Government applies only in case of applicants for establishment of Renewable Power Park or Renewable Power Park Developers and not in respect of applicants for grant of connectivity (applicants for connectivity or for enhancement of quantum of connectivity; generating stations including Renewable Energy Generating Stations (REGS), with or without Energy Storage System (ESS); captive generating plants; standalone ESS etc). In other words, two categories are made, segregating the renewable power park developers -8- from all other categories. The mandatory requirement of securing authorization from the competent Government applies only in respect of Renewable Power Park Developers. Secondly, there is only one queue for both categories and seniority is based on the seniority of filing application. Thirdly, the other applicants can by-pass the Renewable Power Park Developers in seniority since the power park developers are yet to obtain an authorization at the hands of the competent Government. Fourthly, no guidelines are prescribed to the competent Government under the GNA Regulations for consideration and grant of authorization. The State Government is insisting on the petitioners to apply for a Government Order (for short ‘GO’) for grant of authorization. Although the petitioners have applied to the State Government for grant of authorization, the process of issuance of GO is tedious and the petitioners are forced to pay enormous charges for grant of GO. The issue has become more complicated since petitions have been filed by the Association of Energy Developers in a separate writ petition and interim orders have been passed by this Court in the matter of collection of fee for grant of GO. Fifthly, since -9- the connectivity is limited in capacity, by the time the petitioners secure authorization at the hands of the State Government, the applicants in all other categories will be granted connectivity and the petitioners will be left high and dry. 4. Having regard to such grievance vented out by the petitioners, interim orders were passed by this Court on 16.01.2025 directing the third respondent-CTUIL to reserve 600 MW in Ballari and 890 MW in Tumkuru-II Grid sub- stations for allotment to the petitioners, while granting liberty to the third respondent to grant connectivity to other applicants barring the portion reserved for the petitioners, until further orders. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri G.S.Kannur appearing for the petitioners contended that the word ‘authorisation’ which is mandated in the impugned Regulations is not defined. There are no guidelines stipulated in the GNA Regulations guiding the State Government in the matter of grant of authorization. On the other hand, the State Government, on the recommendation of the Nodal Agency KREDL, and in -10- terms of the renewable energy policy of the State Government, is insisting that the petitioners should apply for grant of GO. It is submitted that it is not disputed at the hands of the respondents, more particularly, KREDL and the State Government that all the other applicants who have been granted connectivity or would be granted connectivity in the future will have to approach the State Government for grant of GO. However, in respect of the renewable power park developers, a distinction is sought to be made mandating them for securing authorization at the hands of the State Government even prior to the connectivity being granted by the CTUIL. It is submitted that although applications were filed by the petitioners well in time and they stand high in the seniority list of applicants, nevertheless, since the petitioners are not able to secure authorization at the hands of the State Government, the applicants below the petitioners in the seniority are permitted to by-pass the petitioners and connectivity is being given to them. It is pointed out that having regard to the existing renewable energy potential, at present the evacuate substantial capacity through the ISTS at Tumakuru-II sub- -11- station is 1.5 GW and at Ballari also it is 1.5 GW. Therefore, if the other applicants who are below the petitioners in seniority are permitted to by-pass the petitioners in the line of seniority and connectivity is awarded to such applicants, the petitioners will be left without any capacity for grant of connectivity. 6. Faced with such difficult situations, the petitioners are before this Court seeking appropriate directions either to the CTUIL to process the applications filed by the petitioners without insisting on authorization or a direction to the State Government to issue authorization without insisting on GO. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that it has been more than three months after applications are filed by the petitioners seeking authorization at the hands of the State Government. The State Government, through KREDL is holding up the applications on one pretext or the other. In one case, it is informed to the petitioners that some other applicants have applied for the same coordinates (place of establishment of the wind turbines), although such applicants are found not eligible to seek GO. Objections are also raised -12- that the requisite fee is not paid, although the State Government is aware that this Court has passed interim orders directing the State Government not to collect the fee prescribed, which is under challenge. In another case, although the fee is paid, some other objection is raised and the application is not being processed. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that although the learned Additional Advocate General had made a statement before this Court that the said application where fee has been paid by the petitioners will be processed within a specified time, nevertheless till date the said application has not been processed. 7. Sri.K.Aravind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondent-Union of India and the CERC submitted that the requirement of the renewable power park developers to secure authorization at the hands of the competent Government stems from the fact that the Power park developer is not a generating company as defined in Section 2(30) of The Electricity Act. It is only a generating company or a generating station which is -13- empowered to seek a dedicated transmission line. That is the reason why the other applicants who seek connectivity at the hands of the CTUIL need not obtain authorization at the hands of the competent Government. Learned ASG submitted that in terms of the second proviso to Section 9 of the Electricity Act, no licence is required for a generating company. However, in the year 2015 the Government of India came up with a Policy in order to encourage development of renewable energy and for the first time provision was made for ‘Park Generators’ to apply for connectivity and establish generating parks where other generating companies could establish their units. However, having regard to the statutory provisions, the distinction is made between the generating companies and a renewable power park developer. The learned ASG would therefore submit that the contention of the petitioners that power park developers are discriminated against by insisting on procuring authorization at the hands of the State Government while the same is not made applicable to the other generating companies, cannot be accepted. There is an intelligible differentia and therefore, the extant GNA -14- Regulations or more particularly Regulation No.5.8 (vii) cannot be held as unconstitutional. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri Reuben Jacob appearing for the respondent-State and respondent No.2-KREDL submitted that in terms of the Karnataka Renewable Energy Policy 2022-2027 which came into force on 06.05.2022, a project proponent including Park Developer who require authorization at the hands of the State Government for projects connected to CTU (Central Transmission Utility) are required to file application. The Policy also requires the applicant to secure a Government Order and therefore the petitioners are required to obtain a Government Order. The learned AAG has adopted the submissions made by the learned ASG, while pointing out to the provisions contained in the GNA Regulations, that a distinction is made insofar as generators are concerned when compared to a Park Developer which is not a generator. 9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri S.S.Naganand, appearing for the CTUIL adopted the arguments of the learned ASG, insofar as the requirements in terms of GNA Regulations are -15- concerned. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out to I.A.No.1/2024 filed at the hands of the CTUIL and submitted that the CTUIL has considered and rejected the applications filed by the petitioners and therefore the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. It is submitted that by order dated 08.08.2024, this Court had directed CTUIL to consider the application filed by the petitioner for grant of GNA connectivity on a seniority basis without insisting on authorization. The petitioners had also written to the CTUIL seeking consideration of the applications in terms of the directions issued by this Court. Accordingly, orders were passed by CTUIL on 30.08.2024 and 02.09.2024 rejecting the applications. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore submitted that as on date, the applications filed by the petitioners are not available for consideration. 10. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel Sri G.S.Kannur appearing for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the last paragraphs of the communications dated 30.08.2024 and 02.09.2024, where it is stated that the rejection of the application of the petitioners shall be subject -16- to the directions that may be issued by this court. Therefore, it is submitted that CTUIL is aware of the fact that such orders being passed contrary to the directions issued by this Court cannot be sustained and therefore leave of this court is sought by CTUIL that such orders will be subject to the final outcome of these writ petitions. 11. Learned Senior Counsels Sri.K.G.Raghavan, Sri.Udaya Holla along with learned Counsels Sri.Deep Rao Palepu appearing for the impleading applicants have all expressed concerns on behalf of the impleading applicants who are the competing applicants seeking connectivity at the hands of CTUIL. It is contended that by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court directing reservation of 900 MW in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners are benefited although they do not comply with the requirements as per the GNA Regulations. It is contended that some of the impleading applicants who are above the petitioners in seniority of application, have been deprived of their rights in obtaining connectivity at the hands of CTUIL. Although some of the impleading applicants were initially below the -17- petitioners in seniority, nevertheless they have been deprived of a right to be considered, as a result of the interim orders passed by this Court. It is contended that in terms of the GNA Regulations, if the petitioners did not comply with the requirements, they could be ignored while the next in line is eligible for consideration. However, since interim orders have been passed by this Court reserving 900 MW in favour of the petitioners, the next in line is deprived of an opportunity of consideration. It is also a fact that the seniority which would be lost by the petitioners, have been protected at the hands of this Court. It is therefore submitted that at any rate the seniority of the impleading applicants need to be protected and restored at the hands of this Court. 12. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.Gurudas S.Kannur, appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Rebuen Jacob, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1-State and respondent No.2 – Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Ltd., Sri.S.S.Naganad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, Sri.K. Aravind Kamath, -18- Additional Solicitor General of India, Sri.K.G. Raghavan, Sri.Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsels, and Sri.Deep Rao Palepu along with Sri. Sudheesh S Kesarkar, learned Counsels for impleading applicants and perused the material on records. 13. The primary contention of the petitioners is that since two categories are made viz., the Park Developers on the one hand and all the others on the other hand, but since one single queue of applicants is provided for, the Park Developers are put at a disadvantage. It is their contention that since authorization is required to be obtained by Park Developers, at the hands of the Government, the time required by the Park Developers to obtain authorization should have been kept in mind. On facts, it was submitted that the petitioners have filed application seeking authorization, more than three months ago and authorization is yet to be issued. It is the contention of the petitioners that since proper guidelines are not prescribed under the GNA Regulations to the competent Government in the matter of grant of authorization, the State Government is acting -19- arbitrarily, while forcing the petitioners to obtain Government Order. Although the petitioners have made further application to secure Government Order, there again payment of fee has become an issue. In another writ petition pending consideration before this Court, interim orders are passed restricting the State Government from seeking payment of fee, till the disposal of the writ petition. When these difficulties faced by the petitioners are brought to the notice of the CTUIL, the CTUIL has not taken any initiative to redress the grievance of the petitioners. 14. During the course of these proceedings, the petitioners sought leave of this Court to approach the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission to relax the requirement of obtaining an authorization from the State Government, having regard to Regulation No.41 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Connectivity and General Network Access to the Interstate Transmission System) Regulations, 2022. Accordingly, by order dated 17.03.2025 this Court granted permission to the petitioners to approach the Commission while also directing the Commission to consider -20- the representation that would be given by the petitioners for relaxation and to take a decision to put an end to the litigation. However, it appears that the Central Commission rejected the representation given by the petitioners. 15. It is noticeable that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Reliance Energy Limited and Another /vs./ Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. and Others (2007) 8 SCC 1, has held that the standards applied by Courts in judicial review must be justified by constitutional principles which govern the proper exercise of public power in a democracy. It was held that Articles 21 and 14 are the heart of the chapter on fundamental rights. They cover various aspects of life. “Level playing field” was held to be an important concept while construing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It was further held in paragraphs-36 and 38 which read as hereunder: “36. We find merit in this civil appeal. Standards applied by courts in judicial review must be justified by constitutional principles which govern the proper exercise of public power in a democracy. Article 14 of the Constitution embodies the principle of “non- -21- discrimination”. However, it is not a free-standing provision. It has to be read in conjunction with rights conferred by other articles like Article 21 of the Constitution. The said Article 21 refers to “right to life”. It includes “opportunity”. In our view, as held in the latest judgment of the Constitution Bench of nine Judges in I.R. Coelho.v.State of T.N. [(2007) 2 SCC 1], Articles 21/14 are the heart of the chapter on fundamental rights. They cover various aspects of life. “Level playing field” is an important concept while construing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is this doctrine which is invoked by REL/HDEC in the present case. When Article 19(1)(g) confers fundamental right to carry on business to a company, it is entitled to invoke the said doctrine of “level playing field”. We may clarify that this doctrine is, however, subject to public interest. In the world of globalisation, competition is an important factor to be kept in mind. The doctrine of “level playing field” is an important doctrine which is embodied in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This is because the said doctrine provides space within which equally placed competitors are allowed to bid so as to subserve the larger public interest. “Globalisation”, in essence, is liberalisation of trade. Today India has dismantled licence raj. The economic reforms introduced after 1992 have brought in the concept of “globalisation”. Decisions or acts which result in unequal and discriminatory treatment, would violate the doctrine of “level playing field” embodied in Article 19(1)(g). -22- Time has come, therefore, to say that Article 14 which refers to the principle of “equality” should not be read as a stand alone item but it should be read in conjunction with Article 21 which embodies several aspects of life. There is one more aspect which needs to be mentioned in the matter of implementation of the aforestated doctrine of “level playing field”. According to Lord Goldsmith, commitment to the “rule of law” is the heart of parliamentary democracy. One of the important elements of the “rule of law” is legal certainty. Article 14 applies to government policies and if the policy or act of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of “reasonableness”, then such an act or decision would be unconstitutional. 38. When tenders are invited, the terms and conditions must indicate with legal certainty, norms and benchmarks. This “legal certainty” is an important aspect of the rule of law. If there is vagueness or subjectivity in the said norms it may result in unequal and discriminatory treatment. It may violate doctrine of “level playing field”. (Emphasis supplied) 16. Applying the tests as expounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds, in the present context, that the grievances of the petitioners is well founded. The respondents, more particularly the CTUIL and the CERC are -23- aware of the difficulties faced by the petitioners in the matter of obtaining authorization at the hands of the State Government. The CERC declined to entertain a representation given by the petitioners to redress their grievance. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that there is substance in the contentions of the petitioners that they have been discriminated against by virtue of a stipulation in the GNA Regulations requiring a Park Developer to obtain authorization at the hands of the Government. The problem for the petitioners/Park Developers is further complicated at the hands of the State Government in insisting that the petitioners have to apply and obtain a Government Order, although there is no such requirement under the GNA Regulations. There can be no doubt that the respondent authorities have failed to create a Level Playing Field for the petitioners. 17. This Court is also of the considered opinion that it is bounden duty of the CERC which formulated the GNA Regulations and which is also empowered to remove difficulties faced by the petitioners, to have considered -24- issuing directions relaxing the requirement and the CERC has failed in its duties. 18. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the apprehensions of the impleading applicants is unfounded. The petitioners are not before this Court to seek out of turn consideration of their applications. The petitioners grievances are genuine in as much as, the GNA Regulations do not prescribe any guidelines to the competent Government for grant of authorization; no time frame is fixed to enable the competent Government to consider and grant authorization; as a consequence, though the petitioners have filed the application before the CTUIL, their application is not considered by CTUIL on the ground that the petitioners have not secured authorization at the hands of the State Government. The other applicants who are in the queue are allowed to by-pass the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are not qualified. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the respondent authorities have failed to create a level playing field for the applicants. The respondent authorities have failed to notice this anomalous -25- fcsituation where, by the time the petitioners secure authorization at the hands of the State Government, the connectivity gets exhausted and the petitioners will be left high and dry. The least that was required from the respondent authorities and the GNA Regulations was to provide separate queues for Renewable Power Developers and Renewable Power ‘Park Developers’. 19. For the reasons stated above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petitions are partly allowed. (ii) The interim directions issued by this Court on 16.01.2025 reserving 890 MW in Tumkur-II sub-station and 600 MW in Bellary sub-station of connectivity for consideration of the applications filed by the petitioners, shall stand extended till authorization is granted by the respondent State Government, in favour of the petitioners. (iii) Liberty is also reserved to the respondent authorities (CERC and CTUIL) to reconsider the applications of the petitioners and grant -26- in-principle approval/ connectivity to the petitioners subject to they obtaining authorization at the hands of the State Government. (iv) I.A.No.1/2024 filed by the CTUIL stands rejected, consequently setting aside the orders dated 30.08.2024 and 02.09.2024 passed by CTUIL, while restoring the applications of the petitioners for re-consideration. (v) The impleading applications are formally allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioners shall carryout the amendment in the cause title. Ordered accordingly. Pending I.As. if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/KLY CT: JL -27- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [M/S. RAYS POWER INFRA LIMITED AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS] 24.10.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER ON I.A.NO.6/2025 IN W.P.NO.35002/2024 1. This application is filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: (a) Modify the Interim Order dated 16.01.2025 and direct the Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL/Respondent No.3) to process the pending application of the Applicant for grant of 300 MW ISTS Connectivity at the Tumkur-II PS in accordance with the seniority principle laid down under Regulation 3.6 of the CERC (Connectivity and General Network Access to the inter-State Transmission System) Regulations, 2022 and applicable law; (b) Declare that any reservation of margins or grant of connectivity inconsistent with the inter-se seniority principle under Regulation 3.6 CERC (Connectivity and General Network Access to the inter-State Transmission -28- System) Regulations, 2022 is contrary to law and liable to be disregarded; and (c) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Yesterday, when the matter was listed, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 sought for a short accommodation to secure instructions and make submissions. 3. Today, the learned counsel submits on instructions that the notification in reference in paragraph No.2 was in fact published on 19.06.2024 and it came into effect from 15.07.2024. The reference to the date in paragraph No.2 is accordingly to be corrected as June-July 2024. 4. Insofar as the clarification sought in paragraph No.10, learned Senior Counsel, Sri Gurudas S. Kannur appearing for the petitioners submits that this Court has passed the order setting aside two orders passed by respondent No.3, but has left out another order passed by respondent No.3 on 09.09.2024, which was in fact furnished -29- along with Annexure-E. In that view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel submits that the direction in the order at serial No.(iv) should also contain the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by respondent No.3. 5. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that though this Court has directed the respondent authorities CERC and CTUIL to reconsider the applications of the petitioners and grant in-principle approval/connectivity to the petitioners subject to they obtaining authorization at the hands of the State Government, nevertheless no time frame is fixed and therefore the other prayer regarding fixing of a specific time. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General points out to the prayer and submits that directions are now sought to the respondent-State to fix a particular time frame, while no such directions have been issued to the State Government. 7. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel submits that the directions may be given to the respondents - CERC and CTUIL and not to the State. -30- 8. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The application, I.A.No.6/2025 is allowed. (ii) The typographical error found in paragraph No.2 of the order dated 09.09.2025 in W.P.No.35002/2024 C/w W.P.No.21533/2024 regarding “August 2024” shall be replaced with the words “June-July 2024”. (iii) The directions at serial No.(iv) of the order dated 09.09.2025 in W.P.No.35002/2024 C/w W.P.No.21533/2024 shall also include the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the CTUIL, as found at Annexure-E. The direction at serial No.(iv) will now read as “orders dated 30.08.2024, 02.09.2024 and 09.09.2024”. (iv) The direction issued at serial No.(iii) of the order dated 09.09.2025 in W.P.No.35002/2024 C/w W.P.No.21533/2024 to the respondent authorities (CERC and CTUIL) to consider the -31- applications of the petitioners and grant in- principle approval for connectivity, within a time frame shall now read as follows; (iii) Liberty is also reserved to the respondent authorities (CERC and CTUIL) to reconsider the applications of the petitioners and grant in- principle approval/ connectivity to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today, while such approval shall be subject to the petitioners obtaining authorisation at the hands of the State Government. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39