- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 32468 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: T SHARANAPPA S/O THIPPESWAMY, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT MOGALAHALLI VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 535. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. POONAM S. PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE- 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), C.O AND M DIVISION, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA - 577 598. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (DSM) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025 BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE- 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.SRIRANGA, SR.COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.06.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND A1 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER REQUESTING TO EXECUTE THE SUPPLEMENTARY POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT (SPPA) AT THE TARIFF OF RS.9.56 PER UNIT W.E.F. DATE OF COMMISSIONING I.E., FROM 18.01.2018 IN RESPECT OF THE SOLAR ROOF TOP PHOTO VOLTAIC (SRTPV) PLANT SITUATED AT MOGALAHALLI VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2024 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (APTEL) VIDE ANNEXURE Q AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act upon the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (For short 'APTEL') in the case of SMT. A.JAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1 (SMT. A.JAYAMMA), whereby the Tribunal set aside the termination of Power Purchase Agreement (for short 'PPA') dated 17.12.2015 and directed the SRTPV system of the petitioner shall be synchronized/commissioned in accordance with the said PPA, without insisting upon execution of a fresh agreement. The petitioner seeks enforcement of the said directions by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The petitioner has entered into PPA on 17.12.2015 with the respondent-BESCOM for establishing a Solar Roof Top Photo Voltaic (for short 'SRTPV') system 1 Appeal No.137/2022 and connected matters. dated 20.03.2024 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025 under the generic tariff order dated 10.10.2013. The PPA was subsequently cancelled by the respondent-BESCOM citing violations, resulting in the petitioner executing fresh PPA at a reduced rate. Challenging the legality of cancellation and reduced tariff, the petitioner approached the APTEL, which by a common judgment in SMT. A.JAYAMMA's case (supra), the APTEL allowed the appeal, revived the original PPA and held that synchronization and commissioning must be carried out strictly in the PPA dated 17.12.2015. The respondent- BESCOM has challenged the APTEL judgment before the Apex Court and is pending in Civil Appeal. Pending adjudication before the Apex Court, the petitioner is now seeking for execution of the APTEL's direction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the APTEL has unequivocally restored the PPA dated 17.12.2015 and held that the BESCOM cannot insist upon execution of a fresh agreement. Learned counsel submits that in the absence of any interim stay of the APTEL - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025 judgment in the petitioner's matter, the respondents are legally bound to implement the same and that despite repeated representations, the respondents have not synchronized and commissioned the petitioner's SRTPV unit as directed by the APTEL and accordingly, submits that a mandamus for enforcement of the APTEL order is needed to be ordered in this petition. 4. Per contra, Sri.Sreeranga, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and execution of an order of the APTEL or enforcement of PPA must be pursued before the appropriate regulatory forum or by seeking relief in a pending Civil Appeal and not before this Court. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the APTEL’s judgment has already been challenged in Civil Appeal before the Apex Court. Any order implementing the APTEL decision will defeat the rights of the BESCOM and render the Civil Appeal infructuous. Learned Senior counsel also submits that the petitioner seeks enforcement of a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025 contractual obligation under PPA/SPPA, which cannot be granted in the writ petition. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 6. The relief sought pertains to enforcement of terms of PPA and implementation of direction of the APTEL affecting tariff and contractual liabilities. Such matters are inherently contractual and not amenable to jurisdiction. The APTEL's judgment, which the petitioner seeks to enforce is subject matter in a pending Civil Appeal before the Apex Court. Entertaining the writ petition at this stage and issuing direction for its execution would interfere with the appellate jurisdiction and the same would render the pending appeal nugatory. What is essentially sought is the execution of an appellate order. Execution proceedings under the guise of writ petition are impermissible, especially when the appellate decree is under challenge before a superior Forum. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025 7. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is not maintainable and no grounds are made for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner having approached this Court by way of an execution petition under the guise of a writ petition is not entitled to the reliefs sought. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition stands dismissed. ii) All the rights and contentions are kept open to be urged before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7