- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28693 WP No. 7216 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7216 OF 2022 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) S-15 SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, (BESCOM) 1ST FLOOR, HOSAKEREHALLI BMTC BUS STAND BANASHANKARI, 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT H S SHANTHA GOPAL NO.3438, 2ND CROSS GIRINAGARA, 4TH STAGE BANASHANKARI, 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560 085. 2. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM (CGRF) REP. BY CHAIR PERSON BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BESCOM, WEST CIRCLE OFFICE, CA SITE NO.05, WEST OF CHORD ROAD 3RD STAGE, BHIMA JYOTHI, HSBC LAYOUT NEXT TO CHORD ROAD HOSPITAL BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 079. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28693 WP No. 7216 of 2022 (BY SRI. KASHYAP N NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ANNEXURE-L, DATED 07.08.2021 PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE R-2. TO QUASH ANNEXURE-L DATED 07.08.2021 PASSED IN CASE No.CGRF.34/2020- 21/17.02.2021 ON THE FILE OF THE R-2, TO QUASH ANNEXURE-L, DATED 07.08.2021 PASSED IN CASE No.CGRF.34/2020-21/17.03.2021 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY ISSUING OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTIONS. 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, Assistant Executive Engineer is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 in terms of which the respondent No.2 has directed petitioner herein to pay the bill as per Power Purchase Agreement(PPA) dated 20.12.2017 limiting the SRTPV installed capacity to 4 KW by revising the bill on pro-data basis and has further directed the petitioner herein to reconnect SRTPV installation within 15 days from the date of the order. 2. Brief facts of the case are: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28693 WP No. 7216 of 2022 (a) That respondent No.1 herein being consumer of installation bearing R.R.No.EH34373 which was serviced on 02.08.2010 for sanction load for 4 KW under LT-2(a) for domestic tariff had executed a SRTPV Power Purchase Agreement(PPA) with the Assistant Executive Engineer(AEE) on 20.12.2017 which was commissioned on 23.02.2018. (b) That in the meanwhile KERC had passed an order dated 15.09.2017 to allow in the case of existing SRTPV units, any change in the sanctioned load of connected consumer installation of any change in the tariff category of the connected consumer installation, provided such consumer agrees to cancel the existing PPA and to enter into new PPA with the tariff prescribed in the order. (c) That in lieu of SRTPV Power Purchase Agreement which was entered into between respondent No.1 and the Assistant Executive Engineer for a capacity of 5 KW as against the sanctioned load of 4 KW, an Official Memorandum dated 14.09.2018 was issued enhancing the sanctioned load of installation bearing RR No.EH34373 as per the request of the consumer through online application dated 05.09.2018, without making a new PPA as to applicable tariff, violating the order passed by KERC dated 15.09.2017. This violation of tariff was discovered later, pursuant to which a notice was issued to respondent No.1 calling upon her - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28693 WP No. 7216 of 2022 to sign a new PPA for SRTPV plant as per the tariff order which was declined, resulting in Assistant Executive Engineer issuing Official Memorandum dated 03.03.2021 terminating the SRTPV and disconnecting the same for non payment of amount as per the terms and conditions of the PPA. (d) Being aggrieved Respondent No.1 had approached the respondent No.2 which registered the complaint in case number CGRF-34/2020-2021 and 17.02.2021. On receipt of notice from respondent No.2 pursuant to the said complaint of respondent No.1, petitioner herein submitted the reply, bringing to its notice the agreement dated 20.12.2017 for 5 KVA SRTPV and the applicable tariffs thereof, which were in violation of the order of the KERC dated 19.09.2016 as the sanctioned load was in excess of permissible limit of 4 KW. However, the respondent No.2 without appreciating this aspect of the matter, passed the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition, submits that fixation of tariff is within the domain and jurisdiction of KERC and the respondent No.2-Consumer Grievance Forum has no authority to pass any order affecting - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28693 WP No. 7216 of 2022 the exclusive domain and jurisdiction of KERC. He submits admittedly respondent No.1 is enjoying the sanctioned load limit of 5 KW which is in excess of sanctioned load of 4 KW. Therefore, there is violation of the order of KERC which could not be found fault with as the said agreement was terminated. The respondent No.2 therefore could not have directed the petitioner herein to raise the invoice at reduced sanctioned load from 5KW to 4KW and could not have further directed reinstallation of SRTPV. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 4. In response learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the respondent No.1 had made an application seeking sanction only to an extent of 4 KW and it had no role of any nature whatsoever in petitioner sanctioning 5 KW sanctioned load. Without there being any fault on the part of the respondent No.1, the petitioner on his own motion had taken up the issue and arbitrarily cancelled the agreement which has been duly addressed by respondent No.2. It is further submitted that despite respondent No.2 specifically directed the petitioner to pay the amount calculating the sanctioned load at 4KW proportionately, the said amount also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28693 WP No. 7216 of 2022 has not been paid till date. Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard and perused the records. 6. Facts narrated above do not require reiteration. In the impugned order respondent No.2 at unnumbered paragraph at page 81-Findings and conclusion has held as under: Findings and conclusion: The forum has heard the submission made by both the parties. It is fact that the KERC (implementation of Solar Roof Top Photo Voltaic power plant) Regulation 2016 dated: 19.12.2016 clause 4, conditions for installation of SRTPV which states as follows: "An eligible installation in the area of supply of a distribution licensee shall be allowed to install SRTPV plant with installed capacity of not less than 1KW but not exceeding 1MW, subject to further limit based on the sanction load of the consumer's installations, as may be specified by the commission from time to time". Further Forum has noticed that in the instant case the sanctioned load of the consumer's meter i.e. R.R.No.EH34373 is 4KW, the Respondent executed PPA for SRTPV plant capacity for 5KW, without application of mind and without following the KERC Regulations which are in force at that time. Further the KERC tariff and other operational procedures applicable in respect of multiple/combined Solar Roof Top Photo Voltaic (SRTPV) installation in a single premises order dated: 15.09.2017 clause (viii) and (ix) which states that: viii:"To allow in the case of existing SRTPV units, any change in the sanctioned load of the connected consumer installation or any change in the tariff category of the connected consumer installation provided such consumer agreed to cancel the existing PPA and enters into new PPA with the tariff prescribed in this order." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28693 WP No. 7216 of 2022 ix:"To specify that tariff payable for the energy injected into the distribution licensee's system in all the above cases either under net metering or gross metering shall be the latest finalized APPC rates notified by the commission or Rs.4/- per unit whichever is less". It is also noticed by the Forum that the Respondent issued notice to terminate the PPA of SRTPV signed on 20.12.2017 but the Complainant has not executed the new PPA. It is evident from this the PPA executed on 20.12.2017 is still in force. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Forum passes the following order No: CP/CGRFBU/BWC2047-49 DATED: 7TH AUGUST 2021 ORDER 1. The Complaint is allowed. 2. The Respondent is directed to pay the bill as per the PPA dated: 20.12.2017 limiting the SRTPV installed capacity to 4KWp by revising bill on pro-rata basis. 3. Reconnect the SRTPV installation within 15 days from the date of this order by limiting the SRTPV capacity of 4KWP". 7. Perusal of the above findings, conclusion and the operative portion of the impugned order would make it clear that the respondent No.2 has found no error or irregularity in respondent No.1 entering into PPA agreement, albeit the sanctioned load was 5 KW while the respondent No.1 herself had sought for 4 KW. The respondent No.2 has also found the issuance of notice to terminate the PPA which was signed on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28693 WP No. 7216 of 2022 20.12.2017 as not acceptable since the said PPA was valid and subsisting and was still in force and has consequently proceeded to pass the order as noted above directing petitioner to pay the bill as per PPA dated 20.12.2017 limiting SRTPV installed capacity to 4 KW by revising the bill on pro-data basis. Nothing is brought to the notice of this Court as to any provision which restrict or prohibits such an arrangement. Further as rightly pointed out, enhancement of the sanctioned load was not due to any default or misconduct attributable to the respondent No.1. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that necessary action was indeed taken against the erring official who had granted 5 KW instead of requisition 4 KW. This being the admitted position, respondent No.1 cannot be penalised for the fault committed by the official of the BESCOM. 9. In the circumstances this Court is in full agreement with the order passed by respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to pay the bill as per PPA 20.12.2017 limiting SRTPV installed capacity to 4 KW instead of 5 KW. Hence, no interference is warranted. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28693 WP No. 7216 of 2022 10. It is submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.2 has not been given effect to, petitioner shall ensure that the order passed by respondent No.2 is given effect to forthwith at any rate not beyond 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33