Karnataka High Court
Balaji Reddy M L vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.62576/2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
BALAJI REDDY M.L.,
S/O.LATE LAKSHMIPATHY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT GULUR ROAD,
BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 207. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJESH RAI K., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPT BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY,
C.O. & M SUB-DIVISION,
BESCOM, CHIKKABALLAPUR-561 207,
REPT. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
3. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY,
CORPORATE OFFICE, ROOM NO.1,
GROUND FLOOR, BLOCK-2,
KR CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001,
REPT. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
4. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY,
CORPORATE OFFICE ROOM NO.1,
2
GROUND FLOOR, BLOCK-2,
KR CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001,
REPT. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
5. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY
REGULATORY COMMISSIONER,
6 & 7TH FLOOR,
MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
NO.9/2, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.B.SATYANARAYANA SINGH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
SRI T.S.AMAR KUMAR, ADV. FOR R5;
R4 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 05.10.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-N
ISSUED BY THE R2 TERMINATING THE PPA AGREEMENT
DATED 18.01.2016 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND R2 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
CONSIDER THE REQUEST LETTTER/REPRESENTATION OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 26.09.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-P
TO WITHDRAW THE ORDER OF CENCELLATION OF PPA BY
THE R2.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.T.S.Amar Kumar, learned counsel, to accept notice for respondent No.5.
Registry, to print the name accordingly.
2. The petitioner in this petition is before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by the termination of the 3 Power Purchase Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents.
3. The petitioner and the respondents had entered into an agreement for supply of solar power in terms of the agreement entered therein. In the instant case, an Official Memorandum dated 05.10.2016 cancelling the agreement dated 18.01.2016 is issued. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved is seeking that the same be quashed and a mandamus be issued to the respondents to extend the time by a further period.
4. Be that as it may, presently the issue is only with regard to the cancellation as made and as to whether the same is in accordance with law.
5. This aspect of the matter had arisen for consideration before the Kalaburagi Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.204773-781/2016 and connected petitions. This Court while disposing of the petitions through the order dated 13.12.2016 has arrived at the conclusion that the termination as made without issuing show cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing would not be justified. The learned Judge while arriving 4 at such conclusion has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though a contention is urged on behalf of the respondents that in contractual matters such consideration would not be necessary, keeping in view the fact that certain of the similarly placed persons have already been granted the benefit by this Court by quashing the order of termination and by providing an opportunity to answer the show cause notice so as to enable the respondents to thereafter take a decision in the matter, the said decision passed by this Court is made applicable to the present facts as well.
6. In that view, in this petition also the notice of cancellation issued to the petitioner and assailed in the writ petition stands quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to issue show cause notice afresh, secure reply from the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders and take a decision in accordance with law.
7. To enable such consideration to be made in a time frame, it is directed that the show cause notice if any, to be issued by the respondents shall be issued to 5 the petitioner herein within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner on receipt of the show cause notice shall file the reply within two weeks from the date of receipt of such notice. The respondents shall thereupon complete the process of consideration of the reply and the order be passed in that regard within a period of three weeks thereafter.
8. It is further made clear that though the order of termination is set aside at this point in time to enable the principles of natural justice to be complied, the same shall not give a right to the petitioner to commence the work so as to complete the project in the meanwhile and claim equity. In that circumstance, if the petitioner undertakes any further work relating to the project for its completion from this date onwards till the process of providing the opportunity is completed, whether such progress should be taken into consideration or not is a matter left open to be considered by the respondents, but the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any equity in that regard, unless the respondents choose to 6 consider and accept the same to treat the project as completed.
9. Further while considering the explanation of the petitioner, if any need arises for altering the terms of the agreement, that is also a matter left open to the respondents to take note of the same and take a decision in accordance with law. After the decision is taken by the respondents, if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the action of the respondents, liberty is left to the petitioner to avail its remedy in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and also the learned Government Advocate are permitted four weeks time to file their Vakalath/Memo of appearance, if the same has not been filed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST