- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 9952 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: M/s. SOLARONE ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1A, VANDANA BUILDING, TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001. AND AT PLOT NO. 3, SIRIGIRI NILAYA, 7TH WARD, BESIDE DC OFFICE, SRI NAGAR COLONY, KOPPAL, KARNATAKA - 583 231. REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. MANOJ GUPTA AGED 50 YEARS, S/O MAHESH CHAND GUPTA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI SAMARTH KASHYAP, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, 6TH -8TH FLOOR, TOWER B, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, NAUROJI NAGAR, NEW DELHI - 110 029 REP BY ITS SECRETARY. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 2. 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, PHONE NO 011-23721487. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S. NAGANAND, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMONA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH / SETTING ASIDE TO THE EXTENT CHALLENGED IN THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION, THE COMMON ORDER DATED 21.04.2024 IN PETITION NO.291/MP/2023 AND PETITION NO.292/MP/2023 READ WITH COMMON ORDER DATED 30.03.2025 DATED IN PETITION NO. 305/MP/2024 AND 306/MP/2024 AT ANNEXURE-A AND B. AND ETC, THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: i) Issue a writ, order or direction, more in nature of writ or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing/setting aside to the extent challenged in the present Writ Petition, the common order dated 21.04.2024 in Petition no.291/MP/2023 and petition no.292/MP/2023 read with common order dated 30.03.2025 dated in Petition no.305/MP/2024 and 3-6/MP/2024 at Annexures-A and B, ii) Issue writ order or direction more than in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order directing respondent No.1 to permit the petitioners to utilise the connectivity granted by the Respondent no.2 by way of letters dated 06.06.2022 and 14.06.2022 at Gadag Pooling Substation and Koppal Pooling Substation respectively, for other projects to be executed by the petitioners and any of its subsidiary/group companies in the State of Karnataka at Annexures-E1 to E.2, iii) Issue writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 to take all necessary steps to give full effect to prayer no.(ii) above in letter and spirit etc., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 2. Sri Prabhuling K Navadgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Samarth Kashyap, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner is a company incorporated under provisions of Companies Act, 2013, as a power Generating Company (GC) under Section 2 (28) of Electricity Act, 2003 ('Act', for short). Respondent no.1 was Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), while respondent no.2 - Central Transmission Utility of India Ltd., (CTU) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Power Grid Corporation of India. 3. It was submitted, in pursuance of a proposal for setting up of 1200 MW ISTS in State of Karnataka, under Tariff based competitive bidding, petitioner was successful in securing Letter of Award ('LoA', for short) on 10.03.2022, for 300 MW RE projects, one each in Koppal and Gadag Districts. For said purpose, it was granted 300 MW Stage-II connectivity for Gadag on 06.06.2022 and for Koppal on 14.06.2022. A transmission agreement for connectivity was executed on 28.06.2022. On 07.06.2022, CERC notified Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Connectivity and General Network access to Inter-state Transmission System) Regulations, 2022 ('GNA', for short) as per Annexure-F. On 01.07.2022, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 Petitioner submitted continuing bank guarantees for Rs.50 Lakhs and Rs.3 Crores respectively for connectivity at Koppal and Gadag in favour of CTUI. 4. On 27.10.2022, CTU informed petitioner to transition from connectivity regulations to GNA. Though on 14.11.2022, petitioner assented to same and complied with obligations under LoA, Power Purchase Agreement ('PPA', for short) required to be executed within 90 days of LoA was not executed. After 18 months of LoA, petitioner was allowed to exit without penalty vide letter dated 10.08.2023 at Annexure- D. In meanwhile, various reasons beyond petitioner's control and fact that PPA was executed, led to petitioner defaulting in timeline under LoA. On 04.09.2023, referring to legal/contractual obligations, petitioner submitted detailed representation as per Annexure-L to CTU. But, on 09.09.2023, CTU revoked 300 MW connectivity given to petitioner compelling petitioner to approach CERC in Petitions no.291/MP/2023 and no.292/MP/2023. In said petitions, there was an order staying revocation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 5. It was submitted, in its order dated 21.04.2024, CERC observed annulment of LoA was due to SECI not signing PPA within 90 days of LoA and noting seriousness and commitment of petitioner, exercised powers under Regulations 41 and 42 of GNA and permitted petitioner to convert each of their Connectivity under LoA route to any other route as provided in Regulation 5.8 (xi) of GNA subject to conditions such as, permitting petitioner to either submit land documents or land bank guarantee, within two weeks and in default, permitting CTU to revoke Connectivity granted to petitioner. And in case of compliance, permitted petitioner to submit land documents within three months. And noting considerable progress and earnest of petitioner, CERC granted nine months extension for commissioning project. A further condition for achieving Financial Closure and release of 10% of project cost under equity as stipulated under Regulation 11 (A) and (B) of GNA within six months was also imposed, directing revocation of Connectivity in case of default. It was submitted, noting that petitioner had calculated land requirement by considering project as hybrid of solar plus wind, CERC directed petitioner to follow due process for change of configuration. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 6. It was submitted, immediately after uploading of order by CERC on its website and noting need for clarification, petitioner filed I.A. (Diary) no.230/2024 and 231/2024 in respective petitions, not only seeking clarifications but also extension of time for compliance. On 04.05.2024, CERC disposed of applications granting extension for submission of BG by 20.05.2024 and in default, directing CTU to revoke Connectivity. 7. On Petitions (Diary) no.257/2024 and 258/2024, it passed final orders on 19.05.2024 as per Annexure-R, granting extension. On 28.05.2024, CTU approached CERC with regard to change of source of renewable energy generating stations. Said petitions were disposed of on 02.08.2024 as per order at Annexure-S, granting extension. 8. Aggrieved by said common order, petitioner filed Appeals no.348/2024 and 349/2024 before Appellate Tribunal for Electricity ('APTEL', for short) and seeking extension of time for compliance especially for submitting land documents. By common order dated 16.08.2024 as per Annexure-T, it - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 permitted petitioner to commission project latest by 14.09.2024. It was submitted, said order attained finality. 9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted, during pendency of Petitions before CERC and Appeals before APTEL, petitioner could not have proceeded with development of project as there was uncertainty regarding Connectivity. Moreover, GNA allowed maximum time of twelve months for achieving Financial Closure. 10. It was submitted, though petitioner was making efforts for compliance, it was practically impossible for petitioner to comply with timeline stipulated by APTEL and commence Scheduled Commercial Operations by 21.01.2025. Therefore, petitioner sought indulgence of Commission yet again by filing Petitions no.305/MP/2024 and 306/MP/2024 with identical prayers for extension. But, CERC erroneously viewed them as seeking review of earlier orders and rejected them. Aggrieved by orders of CERC dated 21.04.2024 and 30.03.2025 at Annexures-A and B respectively, present writ petition is filed. 11. It was submitted, Regulation 41 of GNA provided power to relax, while Regulation 42 provided power to remove - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 difficulty. Since petitioner was unable to meet timeline in LoA, due to circumstances not attributable to it, petitions were filed and extension was granted. But as petitioner could not have proceeded with installation without ensuring Connectivity, petitioner could not comply with conditions and sought further extension. 12. It was submitted, while passing impugned order at Annexure-B, CERC duly noted substantial progress made by petitioner for procurement of land both at Gadag and Koppal and permitted petitioner to retain Connectivity. In fact, petitioner had informed by E-mail details of 327.67 Acres of land for its project at Gadag with acquisition of balance extent in progress and acquisition of 450 Acres of land for its project at Koppal, which was substantial progress. Therefore, denial of extension of time, when petitioner was so near compliance, would not only subject petitioner to financial distress but would be counter productive, as allocation of Connectivity to some other Power Generator would require grant of fresh timeline before utilisation of connectivity. Alleging failure by CERC to appreciate said fact and circumstances, interference is sought. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 13. In support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shiv Shakti Sugars Ltd. v. Renuka Sugar Ltd. & Ors reported in (2017) 7 SCC 729, for proposition that Courts, while performing judicial functions are to do economic analysis and assess economic impact of their decisions and where two views are possible, lean in favour of one that subserves economic interest of Nation and avoid particular outcome that has adverse effect on employment, growth of infrastructure or economy or revenue of State. 14. On other hand, Sri SS Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Sumana Naganand, Advocate for respondent no.2 at out-set submitted present writ petition was filed without exhausting efficacious remedy of appeal before APTEL and was liable for dismissal. 15. Elaborating contention, it was submitted, order impugned herein were passed by CERC under Section 79 of Act and appealable under Section 111 before APTEL, with provision for further appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 125 of Act. Therefore, petitioner's assertion about non- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 availability of alternative remedy was false and this ground, petition was liable for dismissal. 16. Apart from above, it was submitted, subject matter of writ petition was extension of time for compliance with stipulations in Regulation 5.8 (xi) of GNA namely Registered Title Deed as proof of ownership or lease rights or land use rights for 50% of land required for capacity for which Connectivity was sought. It was submitted by order dated 21.04.2024, CERC had allowed Petitions no.291/2023 and 292/2023 filed by petitioner, set-aside revocation of Connectivity and permitted submission of Land Documents or Land BG within two weeks, to submit Land Documents within three months, in case of conversion of Land BG and Commissioning of Project within nine months and achieving financial closure and release of 10% of Project Cost under equity within six months. 17. Thereafter, on 04.05.2024, CERC extended time for submission of Land BG upto 20.05.2024 and on 19.05.2024 yet again by another week i.e. upto 27.05.2024, recording undertaking of Petitioner not to seek for further extension, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 expressing displeasure over lackadaisical approach of petitioner, and directing CTU to revoke Connectivity, in case of default by petitioner to confirm with timeline. 18. And when CTU filed Petitions no.218/MP/2024 and 219/MP/2024 for directions on petitioner's request for change in source, petitioner filed I.As Dairy nos.230/2024 and 231/2024 (later converted into Misc.Petitions Dairy no.257/2024 and 258/2024) for further extension. On 02.08.2024, CERC permitted petitioner to submit Land documents within two weeks. Petitioner challenged said orders in Appeals no.348/2024 and 349/2024 before APTEL and which in its order dated 16.08.2024 observed that it had not interfered with any part of order passed by CERC and clarified CTU was empowered to take any appropriate action, in case of failure to fulfil conditions contained in order dated 02.08.2024, latest by 14.09.2024. It also observed against entertaining any request for further extension. It however, granted extension till 14.09.2024 for submitting Land documents. 19. But on 13.09.2024, petitioners once again filed Petitions no.305/MP/2024 and 306/MP/2024 before CERC for - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 extension of time from 14.10.2024 till 21.10.2025 for achieving financial closure and from 21.02.2025 till 21.04.2026. CERC noted, only progress reported by petitioners in 11 months was procurement of 100 Acres of additional lands at Gadag and Koppal and that petitioners were holding on to Connectivity, since three years. With said observations, CERC rejected petitions as not maintainable, by order dated 31.03.2025. Thus, said order was well reasoned and passed after taking note of all facts and circumstances of case and did not warrant interference. 20. It was submitted, rejection of petitions by CERC was with observation that petitions were review petitions in disguise. It was further contended reliance by petitioner on interim order dated 23.09.2023 granted by this Court in W.P.no.21504/2023 was untenable as order impugned therein was allegedly passed without opportunity of hearing, unlike in present case where order was passed after hearing petitioner. 21. Sri Pradeep Nayak, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Smt.Vaheeda, learned AGA for respondent no.3 adopted same. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 22. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 23. As stated above, this writ petition is filed challenging orders passed by CERC rejecting petitioner's application for further extension of time to comply with time- line contained in LoA. From above submissions, it is seen that there is no dispute about petitioner being selected for establishment of 300 MW Solar Power Generating Plants, one each at Gadag and Koppal. It is also admitted that for said purposes, petitioner was sanctioned Connectivity. 24. Admittedly, petitioner has been unable to meet timeline as indicated in LoA and sought extension by filing petitions/applications on several occasions. Firstly on 21.04.2024 when order for revocation of Connectivity was set- aside and time for submission of land documents or land bank guarantee was extended by two weeks, nine months for commissioning of project and achieving financial closure and release of 10% of project cost under equity within six months. 25. On 04.05.2024, CERC extended time for submission of applicable bank guarantee upto 20.05.2024. And thereafter, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 on 19.05.2024, further extension by one week granted to provide requisite land documents to CTU. On 02.08.2024, CERC permitted petitioner to submit land documents, within two weeks. Said order was challenged before APTEL, which while granting extension upto 14.09.2024 has clarified that no portion of order passed by CERC was interfered with, and in case of default by petitioner, CERC was directed to take suitable action. Admittedly, said order attained finality. 26. In case, petitioner was dissatisfied or aggrieved with stipulation of timeline by APTEL, petitioners had opportunity of approaching Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 125 of Act, admittedly, petitioner has not availed said remedy. Thus, timeline indicated by CERC/APTEL had attained finality. 27. Admittedly, State action of which petitioner alleges to be aggrieved of is refusal to consider petitioner's application for extension of time for compliance with timeline stipulated under conditions for LoA/GNA regulations and based on verification of factual aspects. Though, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner may be justified in relying on ratio in Shiv Shakti - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 Sugars (supra) to contend that CERC did not consider consequences of refusal to extend timeline on petitioner as well as whether revocation of Connectivity and its reassignment to some other applicant, (which would require grant of fresh timeline before actual utilisation), would sub-serve public/national interest, especially so when Connectivity is stated to be a limited/scarce resource, such consideration would require appreciation of various relevant factors, whether invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, would be appropriate, requires to be examined. 28. At out-set, it has to be held that invocation of jurisdiction of this Court without first exhausting all available alternative remedies would not be appropriate, if not impermissible. Even thereafter, such consideration may be restricted only to a deserving case, where despite maintaining all earnest, an applicant may have been prevented by any extraordinary circumstances, beyond contemplation in facts and circumstances, as would have prevented applicant from meeting timeline. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 29. In instant case, admittedly, after petitioner failed to meet timeline, it has approached CERC repeatedly for extension of time and which was granted. In case, such extension was either impractical or any other new circumstance was found to affect compliance, petitioner ought to pursue same till its logical end. It is seen, against order dated 02.08.2024 passed by CERC granting extension till 14.09.2024, petitioner had filed appeal before APTEL. However, in its order dated 16.08.2024 at Annexure-T, APTEL clarified that it had not interfered with any part of order passed by CERC and further clarified CTU was empowered to take any appropriate action, in case of failure to fulfil conditions contained in order dated 02.08.2024, latest by 14.09.2024. 30. As noted above, while passing orders CERC/APTEL have made observations about lackadaisical approach by petitioner, expressed displeasure and also recorded that no further application for extension should be entertained. These observations are not referred to hold that petitioner would be disentitled from seeking further extension but noted only for purposes of examining whether present writ petition qualifies - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 for being entertained without insisting upon petitioner to exhaust all available alternative remedies. 31. For aforesaid reasons, preliminary contention urged by respondents about tenability of writ petition is found to be substantiated. 32. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed, relegating petitioner to exhaust alternative remedy of appeal before APTEL under Section 111 of Act, without entering into merits of petitioner's claim or contentions urged by respondents and keeping them open. Pending applications if any, are disposed of as unnecessary. At this stage learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner intends to prefer appeal and as petitioner had benefit of interim order during pendency of Writ Petition, same may be extended till filing of Appeal. Though, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 would oppose same, considering fact that Writ Petition is dismissed on ground of non-exhaustion of alternative - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35294 WP No. 9952 of 2025 efficacious remedy and petitioner now intends to avail said remedy, it would be appropriate to extend interim protection for limited period. Hence, it is ordered that interim order granted in this petition shall continue for a period of two weeks from today. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM,PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14