- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.33954 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: GOVINDAPPA S/O B.N. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/A CHIKKADIBBURAHALLI VILLAGE, DIBBURAHALLI POST, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. POONAM S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (ELE), DSM SECTION, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560001. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) O & M DIVISION, BESCOM, CHINTHAMANI. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) O & M RURAL SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, SHIDLAGHATTA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRIRANGA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21.08.2025 BEARING NO. KaNiIm(V)/Sa.Ka.Ni.E/Sa.E(THA)/Chim/2025-26/3149-55 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BESCOM VIDE ANNEXURE A 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 ORAL ORDER The petitioner being aggrieved by the communication dated 21.08.2025 issued by the respondent - BESCOM, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of “interest” on the differential tariff amount under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for the period from August - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 2016 to March 2025 has been rejected, has approached this Court. BRIEF FACTS 2. The petitioner is an individual who established a 1MW Solar Rooftop Photo Voltaic (SRTPV) plant under the Policy Framework formulated by the State Government to promote Renewable Energy. Pursuant to the orders of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC), the petitioner entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 31.01.2015 with the respondent-BESCOM for the sale of energy at a tariff of `. 9.56 per unit for a period of 25 years. The plant was commissioned and synchronized to the grid on 22.07.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite the agreed tariff under PPA, the respondent unilaterally reduced the tariff to `.5.20 per unit with effect from 01.01.2017, which led to the dispute between the parties. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 3. The petitioner, approached the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) and the said claim was dismissed against which, appeal was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). The APTEL by order dated 08.04.2024, allowed the appeal and held that the petitioner is entitled for tariff at the rate of `.9.56 per unit, as agreed under the PPA. The said order of APTEL, was challenged by the respondent before the Apex Court, which came to be dismissed and even the review petition filed thereafter, was also rejected thereby rendering issue of ‘tariff’ final. Following the same, the respondent paid the differential tariff amount to the petitioner in the month of April 2025, for the period from August 2016 to March 2025. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the delayed payment of tariff, the respondent failed to pay the interest (late payment surcharge) as stipulated, under the terms of the PPA. It is stated that the petitioner made several representations, including a detailed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 representation dated 28.08.2025, contending that as per clause 8 of the PPA, the obligation to raise the bill and make payments, within 30 days lies on the BESCOM and the interest is payable for any delay, beyond the stipulated period. It is stated that instead of paying the interest on the delayed payment, the respondent, by the impugned communication dated 21.08.2025, has rejected the claim for “interest”, on the ground that no invoice was raised by the petitioner and that no specific direction is issued by the KERC or APTEL for ‘payment of interest’. Aggrieved by the rejection and contending that denial of interest is contrary to the terms of the PPA and settled legal position, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the APTEL held, that the petitioner is entitled for `.9.56 per unit, when the said direction of the APTEL, read with the relevant provisions of PPA, necessarily includes the consequential obligation to pay “interest”, particularly under clause 8.4 of the PPA, which mandates payment of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 interest in case of delayed payment beyond the stipulated period. It is submitted that the differential tariff though relating back to the period commencing from August 2016 has been made only in the month of April 2025, and such late payment clearly attracts ‘late payment surcharge/interest’, which is contractual and an automatic consequence. It is submitted that the respondents, being a State instrumentality, cannot unjustly retain amount, lawfully due to the petitioner and therefore deny “interest”, which would amount to unjust enrichment. It is contended, that the rejection of the claim for interest, on the ground that there is no specific direction by regulatory authorities is misconceived, as the obligation to pay ‘interest’ arises out of the contractual terms of PPA and does not require a separate adjudicatory direction. 6. Per contra, Sri S.Sriranga, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, at the outset contends that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law. It is submitted that the petitioner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 had earlier approached the KERC in OP No.45/2018 wherein, the claim of the petitioner for differential tariff was rejected. The appeal preferred before the APTEL was allowed, however, the relief of “interest” on the differential tariff was denied, and the Apex Court though dismissed the petition preferred by respondent No.1, however no specific direction is issued for ‘payment of interest’ and thus, the petitioner is now barred from re-agitating the same claim, attracting the principles of res judicata. It is further contended that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 86 (1) (f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’), which empowers the State Commission to adjudicate the dispute between generating companies and licensees. It is submitted that the dispute arises out of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), involving disputed questions of fact and therefore, petitioner ought to have approached the KERC and not this Court under Article 226. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 6.1. On merits, it is contended that the respondents have not denied any legitimate dues and had duly complied with the orders passed by the competent authorities. It is submitted that the respondent has made payment of the differential tariff amount as per the decision of the APTEL, which order is affirmed by the Apex Court. It is therefore contended that nothing remains payable and specifically contends that, no liability to pay “interest” arises, as the order of the APTEL nor the Apex Court has directed ‘payment of interest’. It is further urged that the petitioner's demand for interest, is an afterthought raised only after the disposal of the proceedings before the Apex Court and not contemporaneously, with earlier claims of differential tariff. On these grounds, the respondents sought to dismiss the writ petition, as devoid of merits. 7. With regard to maintainability, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in ABL International Limited and Another - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others1 (ABL International Limited) to contend that writ petition is maintainable even in contractual matters, when action of the State is arbitrary and unreasonable, and where the dispute involves interpretation of contractual clauses, on admitted facts. It is therefore, contended that the present writ petition does not involve any disputed questions of fact, but only requires interpretation of the PPA and the enforcement of the contractual obligation and hence the writ petition is maintainable. 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 9. The points that arise for consideration are, (i) Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative 1 (2004) 3 SCC 553 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 remedy under Section 86 (1) (f) of the Electricity Act, 2003? (ii) Whether the claim of the petitioner for payment of “interest”/”late payment surcharge” on differential tariff stands concluded in the earlier proceedings before the APTEL and the Apex Court? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest under the PPA on the differential tariff amount and whether such claim can be adjudicated in the present writ proceedings? (iv) Whether the impugned communication rejecting the claim for interest warrants interference? 10. All the points are taken up together to avoid repetition of facts. 11. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the dispute between the parties arises out of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) executed between the petitioner and the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 respondent-BESCOM, governed by the provisions of the Act. The petitioner had approached State Commission in OP 45/2018, wherein not only the issue of tariff but also claim of interest was raised. The State Commission by order dated 07.01.2020, rejected the claim and held that the petitioner is entitled only to a reduced tariff of `.5.20 per unit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the APTEL, which by order dated 08.04.2024 allowed the appeal and held that the petitioner is entitled to tariff of `.9.56 per unit, in terms of the generic tariff order dated 10.10.2013, read with the provisions of PPA. It is significant to note that, APTEL's order does not explicitly grant interest, though it refers to the PPA. The respondent has specifically contended that what was restored was only the tariff component, and not the claim of interest, or late payment surcharge. The said order has been carried to Apex Court which has dismissed the Civil Appeal holding no interference, is warranted. The review petition has also been dismissed. Thus the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 proceedings between the parties culminating up to the Apex Court has attained finality, insofar as tariff is concerned and no specific adjudication guaranteeing interest has been made. In that view of the matter, the questions, (a) whether interest is payable under clause 8.4 of the PPA? (b) whether such interest is impliedly allowed or rejected? and (c) whether the claim survives after earlier adjudication? are all issues which require detailed examination of contractual terms, factual matrix and effect of earlier adjudication. Such questions, cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceedings under Article 226 particularly when, (a) dispute arises out of a commercial contract, (b) liability itself is seriously disputed, and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 (c) the matter requires interpretation of PPA clauses and prior orders. 12. The respondent has raised a contention that the claim of interest stands barred, as the petitioner has already sought such relief, before the APTEL and the same was not granted. Whether: (a) the claim of interest stands rejected (b) remain unadjudicated or survives as a fresh cause of action are issues which require adjudication on merits by the appropriate statutory forum, namely the State Commission, which is vested with jurisdiction under Section 86 (1) (f) of the Act to decide dispute between generator and licensee. 13. The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy before the State Commission, is not in dispute. The present dispute squarely falls within the ambit of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 adjudication of dispute arising out of PPA, which is specifically entrusted to the regulatory commission. The contention of the petitioner relying on the decision in ABL International Limited (supra) is misplaced in the facts of the present case. In the said decision, the Apex Court has held that writ jurisdiction can be invoked in contractual matters where, (a) facts are undisputed, (b) the action is arbitrary on the face of record. However, in the present case, (a) the very entitlement to interest is disputed, (b) the effect to earlier adjudication is uncertain and contested, and (c) the issue requires detailed examination. Therefore, the case does not fall within the limited exceptions carved out in ABL International Limited - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23801 WP No. 33954 of 2025 (supra), and the petitioner cannot bypass the statutory mechanism. 14. Insofar as the impugned communication is concerned, it conveys the decision of the respondent that interest is not payable based on their understanding of the PPA and prior adjudication. In the absence, of any clear adjudication granting ‘interest’ and in view of the disputed nature of the claim, it cannot be said that the impugned communication suffer from any such patent, illegality or arbitrariness to warrant interference under Article 226. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29