- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10054 WP No. 9942 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 9942 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/s.TRIMURTHI POWER PVT. LTD., NO.439/1, "SRI JAI NIVAS", 12TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, HEBBAL KEMPAPUR, BANGALORE-560 024. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SWAROOP S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA MURTHY V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, 2ND FLOOR, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LTD., NO.39, "SHANTIGRUHA", BHARAT SCOUTS & GUIDES BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10054 WP No. 9942 of 2016 3. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD., CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 5. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560 003. 6. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. 7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY STM. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 & R4 TO R7; SRI. SAMARTH KASHYAP., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VC); SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.01.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-Z7, PASSED BY THE R-1. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.01.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-Z8, PASSED BY THE R-1. DIRECT THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST [PCCF] / FOREST DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE FORTHWITH FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT ALLOTTED TO THE PETITIONER AT ADDA HOLE RIVER, BISLE VILLAGE AND KURKAMANE VILLAGE, SAKLESHPUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10054 WP No. 9942 of 2016 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner, a company which is into the business of Hydro Power, Wind Power, Solar Power and Bio Mass having made an application to the respondent-Principal Secretary, Energy Department for allocation/license to set up Mini-Hydel Scheme with a capacity of 5 megawatts at Addahole river, Bisle Village, Sakalespur Taluk, Hassan, which was apparently enhanced to 24 megawatts and having entered into three consecutive agreements (2003, 2006 and 2007) is before this Court being aggrieved by the two orders dated 29.01.2016 produced at Annexure-Z7 and Z8 in terms of which respondent-State has cancelled the agreement that were entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason assigned in the impugned orders attributing dereliction/ non-performance of the terms of the agreement on the part of the petitioner are unjustified inasmuch as the agreement that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10054 WP No. 9942 of 2016 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 was contingent. In that though the land was identified by the petitioner for setting up of the project, the rights over such land was to be acquired subject to conditions enumerated in the agreement, which also included obtaining necessary permissions from the Department of Forest and the petitioner had though made an application in this regard, the same was not considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to clause 3(iv) of the agreement dated 03.06.2003 which provides that the lease in respect of the identified land could be obtained through Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Ltd., (KREDL)- respondent No.2 herein which has also not performed its part of the contract. Therefore, he submits though the petitioner is ready and willing with all the wherewithal could not proceed further, for the impediment performance of which was beyond his control. 3. Learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 submits that in terms of the agreement that was entered into petitioner was required to set up the project within a period of 18 months and from the records it appears the petitioner has made application seeking permission only after the expiry of the said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10054 WP No. 9942 of 2016 period and since the petitioner has not shown any inclination, it is deemed that the petitioner had abandoned the project. 4. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 on the other hand, referring to the statement of objections filed, more particularly paragraph 4 submit that in terms of clause 17 of the agreement dated 24.01.2006, it was made clear that priority would be given to Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., on little upstream of Trimurthi Power Private Limited project and the petitioner company was well aware that its plant would be on the downstream which may not get sufficient water for the project yet petitioner was taking risk by putting up the project knowing fully well that project already have been given to Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. He further submits in any event, responsibility of obtaining the consent from the Department of Forest was that of the petitioner and unless and until that was complied with, the role of KREDL-respondent No.2, would not count. Thus, he submits the blame, if any, has to be at the doorstep of the petitioner. 5. Heard. Perused the records. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10054 WP No. 9942 of 2016 6. Admittedly though the petitioner had entered into agreement with respondent No.1 proposing to set up the Hydel project as noted above, the same has not made any progress. For the reasons as noted above, each one claims and blames the other. The fact remains that the agreement as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner is contingent. In other words, performance of which depends upon the actions to be taken by the respondent authorities as well, which appears to be absent. No proper explanations are forthcoming. 7. Perusal of impugned orders at Annexures -Z7 and Z8 indicate that the project of the petitioner and the agreement entered into consequently thereof has primarily been rejected as according to the Chief Conservator of the Forest there is no provision for setting up mini hydropower projects in Western Ghat forest region. This reasoning found at unnumbered paragraph 5 of the impugned orders read in the light of allegations, claims and the counter claim narrated above would indicate that the petitioner alone cannot be held responsible for he not making any progress. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10054 WP No. 9942 of 2016 8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if an opportunity is provided to him by referring the matter to the respondent-state with a direction to reconsider its case, the purpose of the petition would be served. 9. Learned AGA appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that given some time the application/requisition of petitioner would be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law and appropriate orders would be passed. 10. At this juncture learned counsel for KREDL- respondent No.2 submits that if in the event of respondent No.1 reconsidering the case of the petitioner as requested, the same has to be in accordance with the policy which is current and if the petitioner otherwise satisfies the requirement. 11. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if consideration afresh is made, respondents be directed to consider the place which was identified by the petitioner as on the date of the old application, to which there appears to be no objection from the respondents. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10054 WP No. 9942 of 2016 In view of the aforesaid submissions, petition is partly allowed. Impugned orders at Annexures -Z7 and Z8 are quashed. Matter is remitted to respondent No.1, who shall reconsider the case after affording opportunity to petitioner and shall also obtain the opinion/recommendation if any from the respondent No.2 who shall provide the same without any delay. Order in this regard shall be passed one way or the other within an outer limit of 90 days on the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that though the petitioner's request for consideration of the place/spot identified in the old application be given priority, the rest of the consideration shall be as per the present policy and on payment of applicable fee. Petitioner if required is also at liberty to make a fresh application. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19