Karnataka High Court
M/S. Rays Power Infra Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.35002 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.21533 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
IN WP 35002/2024
BETWEEN
1. M/S. RAYS POWER INFRA LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
1ST, 21 EVERSHINE MALL, NORTH METER CABIN 1
MALAD WEST MUMBAI 400064
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR SANNA THIPPESWAMY
LEGAL MANAGER.
2. RAYSALFA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
605, 6TH FLOOR, MANJUSHA BUILDING,
57 NEHRU PLACE DELHI, SOUTH DELHI-110019
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR SANNA THIPPESWAMY
3. DADUR SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
D-43, JANPATH, SHYAM NAGAR, JAIPUR-302019
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR SANNA THIPPESWAMY
4. NILAJ SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
-2-
THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
P.NO.65, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME
ASHOK NAGAR, JAIPUR-302001
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
5. ANNIGERI SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME
ASHOK NAGAR, JAIPUR-302001
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
6. SIRA SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
65, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME
ASHOK NAGAR, JAIPUR-302001
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GURUDAS S KANNUR., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHIVA KUMAR.C., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560001
REP BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT.
2. KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT LTD
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING
NO.6/13/1 10TH BLOCK 2ND STAGE
NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE 560072
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. CENTRAL TRANSMISSION UTILITY OF INDIA LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT PLOT NO.2 SECTOR 29
NEAR IFFCO CHOWK METRO STATION
GURAGON 122 001
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
-3-
4. UNION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF NEW AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
BLOCK 14 CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 110 003.
5. ACME SOLAR HOLDINGS LTD.,
NO.152, SECTOR 44, GURGAON,
HARYANA-122002
6. AMPIN ENERGY UTILITY PRIVATE LTD.,
7. AMPIN ENERGY C & I FOURTEEN PVT. LTD.,
8. AMPIN ENERGY C & I TWENTYEIGHT PVT. LTD.,
9. AMPIN ENERGY C & I TWENTYNINE PVT. LTD.,
ALL HAVING OFFICE AT 'ORBIS', 2ND CROSS
RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025.
10. ESSAR RENEWABLES LIMITED
ESSAR HOUSE, 11 K.K.MARG,
MAHALAKSHMI, HAJI ALI, MUMBAI-400034.
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.REBUEN JACOB, AAG FOR SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH,
AGA FOR R1
SRI. PIYUSH KUMAR JAIN D., ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. S.S.NAGANAD., SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT.SUMANA NAGANAD.,
ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI. K. ARAVIND KAMATH., ASG A/W SMT. SADHANA S DESAI.,
ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. ARYAMAN GHULATI,
PRITHU CHAWLA & SMT. RASHMI VAISH., ADVOCATES FOR R5
SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. ROHAN SACHDEVA &
SRI. SUDHEESH S KESARKAR., ADVOCATES FOR R6 TO R9
SRI. DEEP RAO PALEPU A/W SRI. SUDHEESH S KESARKAR.,
ADVOCATES FOR R10)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, OR
DIRECTION MORE IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMAUS TO
DIRECT THE R1 &/OR R2 FORTHWITH GRANT GNA AUTHORIZATION
FOR RE PARK IN TERMS OF REGULATION 5.8(vii)(A) OF GNA
REGULATIONS, 2002 (AS AMMENDED) WITHOUT INSISITNG GO AS
-4-
PRESCRIBED FORMAT TO THE PETITIONERS WITHIN A FIXED TIME
PERIODS OF TWO WEEKS AND ETC.
IN WP 21533 OF 2024
BETWEEN
M/S. RAYS POWER INFRA LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
1ST, 21 EVERSHINE MALL,
NORTH METER CABIN 1
MALAD WEST MUMBAI 400064
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR SANNA THIPPESWAMY
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GURUDAS S KANNUR., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHIVA KUMAR.C., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560001
REP BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT.
2 . KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT LTD
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING
NO.6/13/1 10TH BLOCK 2ND STAGE
NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE 560072
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 . CENTRAL TRANSMISSION UTILITY
OF INDIA LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT PLOT NO.2 SECTOR 29
NEAR IFFCO CHOWK METRO STATION
GURGAON 122 001
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4 . UNION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF NEW AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
-5-
BLOCK 14 CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 110 003
5 . CENTRAL ELECRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
6TH 7TH & 8TH FLOORS,
TOWER B, WORLD TRADE CENTRE
NAUROJI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110029.
6. ACME SOLAR HOLDINGS LTD.,
NO.152, SECTOR 44, GURGAON,
HARYANA-122002
7. AMPIN ENERGY UTILITY PRIVATE LTD.,
8. AMPIN ENERGY C & I FOURTEEN PVT. LTD.,
9. AMPIN ENERGY C & I TWENTYEIGHT PVT. LTD.,
10. AMPIN ENERGY C & I TWENTYNINE PVT. LTD.,
ALL HAVING OFFICE AT 'ORBIS', 2ND CROSS
RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025.
11. ESSAR RENEWABLES LIMITED
ESSAR HOUSE, 11 K.K.MARG,
MAHALAKSHMI, HAJI ALI, MUMBAI-400034.
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.REBUEN JACOB, AAG FOR SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH,
AGA FOR R1
SRI. PIYUSH KUMAR JAIN D., ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. S.S.NAGANAD., SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT.SUMANA NAGANAD.,
ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI. K. ARAVIND KAMATH., ASG A/W SMT. SADHANA S DESAI.,
ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5
SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ARYAMAN GHULATI, PRITHU CHAWLA & SMT. RASHMI
VAISH., ADVOCATES FOR R6
SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. ROHAN
SACHDEVA & SRI. SUDHEESH S KESARKAR., ADVOCATES R7
TO R10
SRI. DEEP RAO PALEPU A/W SRI. SUDHEESH S KESARKAR.,
ADVOCATES FOR R11)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, OR
-6-
DIRECTION MORE IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMAUS TO HOLD
AND DECLARE THAT THE R1 &/OR R2 HAS/HAVE AN INHERINT POWER
TO ISSUE GNA AUTHORIZATION AS REQUIRED UNDER REGULATION
5.8(vii)(A) OF GNA REGULATIONS, 2002 (AS AMMENDED) AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
13.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)
The grievances of the petitioners in both these writ
petitions being common and the respondents against whom
directions are sought at the hands of the petitioners also
being common, therefore, these two writ petitions were
clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. Petitioner No.1 through its subsidiaries/Special
Purpose Vehicles applied to the third respondent-Central
Transmission Utility of India Limited (hereinafter referred to
as 'CTUIL' for short) for connectivity, for establishing solar
power parks, responding to the notification published by the
CTUIL in its website, during the month of August 2024. Two
sets of applications were filed in the name of three
-7-
subsidiaries of the petitioners, seeking connectivity at
Tumkur-II Sub-station for 300 MW and 290 MW respectively
while also seeking connectivity at Ballari sub-station for 300
MW. Problems arose for the petitioners in seeking
authorization at the hands of the Government of Karnataka
which is a requirement in terms of regulation 5.8 (vii) (a) of
the General Network Access Regulations, 2022 (for short
'GNA Regulations') notified by the Central Electricity
Regulatory Commission (for short 'CERC').
3. The grievance of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that
the prescription of securing an authorization at the hands of
the State Government applies only in case of applicants for
establishment of Renewable Power Park or Renewable Power
Park Developers and not in respect of applicants for grant of
connectivity (applicants for connectivity or for enhancement
of quantum of connectivity; generating stations including
Renewable Energy Generating Stations (REGS), with or
without Energy Storage System (ESS); captive generating
plants; standalone ESS etc). In other words, two categories
are made, segregating the renewable power park developers
-8-
from all other categories. The mandatory requirement of
securing authorization from the competent Government
applies only in respect of Renewable Power Park Developers.
Secondly, there is only one queue for both categories and
seniority is based on the seniority of filing application.
Thirdly, the other applicants can by-pass the Renewable
Power Park Developers in seniority since the power park
developers are yet to obtain an authorization at the hands of
the competent Government. Fourthly, no guidelines are
prescribed to the competent Government under the GNA
Regulations for consideration and grant of authorization. The
State Government is insisting on the petitioners to apply for
a Government Order (for short 'GO') for grant of
authorization. Although the petitioners have applied to the
State Government for grant of authorization, the process of
issuance of GO is tedious and the petitioners are forced to
pay enormous charges for grant of GO. The issue has
become more complicated since petitions have been filed by
the Association of Energy Developers in a separate writ
petition and interim orders have been passed by this Court in
the matter of collection of fee for grant of GO. Fifthly, since
-9-
the connectivity is limited in capacity, by the time the
petitioners secure authorization at the hands of the State
Government, the applicants in all other categories will be
granted connectivity and the petitioners will be left high and
dry.
4. Having regard to such grievance vented out by the
petitioners, interim orders were passed by this Court on
16.01.2025 directing the third respondent-CTUIL to reserve
600 MW in Ballari and 890 MW in Tumkuru-II Grid sub-
stations for allotment to the petitioners, while granting
liberty to the third respondent to grant connectivity to other
applicants barring the portion reserved for the petitioners,
until further orders.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri G.S.Kannur appearing for
the petitioners contended that the word 'authorisation' which
is mandated in the impugned Regulations is not defined.
There are no guidelines stipulated in the GNA Regulations
guiding the State Government in the matter of grant of
authorization. On the other hand, the State Government, on
the recommendation of the Nodal Agency KREDL, and in
-10-
terms of the renewable energy policy of the State
Government, is insisting that the petitioners should apply for
grant of GO. It is submitted that it is not disputed at the
hands of the respondents, more particularly, KREDL and the
State Government that all the other applicants who have
been granted connectivity or would be granted connectivity
in the future will have to approach the State Government for
grant of GO. However, in respect of the renewable power
park developers, a distinction is sought to be made
mandating them for securing authorization at the hands of
the State Government even prior to the connectivity being
granted by the CTUIL. It is submitted that although
applications were filed by the petitioners well in time and
they stand high in the seniority list of applicants,
nevertheless, since the petitioners are not able to secure
authorization at the hands of the State Government, the
applicants below the petitioners in the seniority are permitted
to by-pass the petitioners and connectivity is being given to
them. It is pointed out that having regard to the existing
renewable energy potential, at present the evacuate
substantial capacity through the ISTS at Tumakuru-II sub-
-11-
station is 1.5 GW and at Ballari also it is 1.5 GW. Therefore,
if the other applicants who are below the petitioners in
seniority are permitted to by-pass the petitioners in the line
of seniority and connectivity is awarded to such applicants,
the petitioners will be left without any capacity for grant of
connectivity.
6. Faced with such difficult situations, the petitioners
are before this Court seeking appropriate directions either to
the CTUIL to process the applications filed by the petitioners
without insisting on authorization or a direction to the State
Government to issue authorization without insisting on GO.
Learned Senior Counsel would submit that it has been more
than three months after applications are filed by the
petitioners seeking authorization at the hands of the State
Government. The State Government, through KREDL is
holding up the applications on one pretext or the other. In
one case, it is informed to the petitioners that some other
applicants have applied for the same coordinates (place of
establishment of the wind turbines), although such applicants
are found not eligible to seek GO. Objections are also raised
-12-
that the requisite fee is not paid, although the State
Government is aware that this Court has passed interim
orders directing the State Government not to collect the fee
prescribed, which is under challenge. In another case,
although the fee is paid, some other objection is raised and
the application is not being processed. Learned Senior
Counsel pointed out that although the learned Additional
Advocate General had made a statement before this Court
that the said application where fee has been paid by the
petitioners will be processed within a specified time,
nevertheless till date the said application has not been
processed.
7. Sri.K.Aravind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India, appearing for the respondent-Union of India
and the CERC submitted that the requirement of the
renewable power park developers to secure authorization at
the hands of the competent Government stems from the fact
that the Power park developer is not a generating company
as defined in Section 2(30) of The Electricity Act. It is only a
generating company or a generating station which is
-13-
empowered to seek a dedicated transmission line. That is
the reason why the other applicants who seek connectivity at
the hands of the CTUIL need not obtain authorization at the
hands of the competent Government. Learned ASG
submitted that in terms of the second proviso to Section 9 of
the Electricity Act, no licence is required for a generating
company. However, in the year 2015 the Government of
India came up with a Policy in order to encourage
development of renewable energy and for the first time
provision was made for 'Park Generators' to apply for
connectivity and establish generating parks where other
generating companies could establish their units. However,
having regard to the statutory provisions, the distinction is
made between the generating companies and a renewable
power park developer. The learned ASG would therefore
submit that the contention of the petitioners that power park
developers are discriminated against by insisting on
procuring authorization at the hands of the State
Government while the same is not made applicable to the
other generating companies, cannot be accepted. There is
an intelligible differentia and therefore, the extant GNA
-14-
Regulations or more particularly Regulation No.5.8 (vii)
cannot be held as unconstitutional.
8. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri Reuben
Jacob appearing for the respondent-State and respondent
No.2-KREDL submitted that in terms of the Karnataka
Renewable Energy Policy 2022-2027 which came into force
on 06.05.2022, a project proponent including Park Developer
who require authorization at the hands of the State
Government for projects connected to CTU (Central
Transmission Utility) are required to file application. The
Policy also requires the applicant to secure a Government
Order and therefore the petitioners are required to obtain a
Government Order. The learned AAG has adopted the
submissions made by the learned ASG, while pointing out to
the provisions contained in the GNA Regulations, that a
distinction is made insofar as generators are concerned when
compared to a Park Developer which is not a generator.
9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri S.S.Naganand, appearing
for the CTUIL adopted the arguments of the learned ASG,
insofar as the requirements in terms of GNA Regulations are
-15-
concerned. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out to
I.A.No.1/2024 filed at the hands of the CTUIL and submitted
that the CTUIL has considered and rejected the applications
filed by the petitioners and therefore the writ petition has
been rendered infructuous. It is submitted that by order
dated 08.08.2024, this Court had directed CTUIL to consider
the application filed by the petitioner for grant of GNA
connectivity on a seniority basis without insisting on
authorization. The petitioners had also written to the CTUIL
seeking consideration of the applications in terms of the
directions issued by this Court. Accordingly, orders were
passed by CTUIL on 30.08.2024 and 02.09.2024 rejecting
the applications. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore
submitted that as on date, the applications filed by the
petitioners are not available for consideration.
10. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel Sri
G.S.Kannur appearing for the petitioners drew the attention
of this Court to the last paragraphs of the communications
dated 30.08.2024 and 02.09.2024, where it is stated that the
rejection of the application of the petitioners shall be subject
-16-
to the directions that may be issued by this court. Therefore,
it is submitted that CTUIL is aware of the fact that such
orders being passed contrary to the directions issued by this
Court cannot be sustained and therefore leave of this court is
sought by CTUIL that such orders will be subject to the final
outcome of these writ petitions.
11. Learned Senior Counsels Sri.K.G.Raghavan,
Sri.Udaya Holla along with learned Counsels Sri.Deep Rao
Palepu appearing for the impleading applicants have all
expressed concerns on behalf of the impleading applicants
who are the competing applicants seeking connectivity at the
hands of CTUIL. It is contended that by virtue of the interim
orders passed by this Court directing reservation of 900 MW
in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners are benefited
although they do not comply with the requirements as per
the GNA Regulations. It is contended that some of the
impleading applicants who are above the petitioners in
seniority of application, have been deprived of their rights in
obtaining connectivity at the hands of CTUIL. Although some
of the impleading applicants were initially below the
-17-
petitioners in seniority, nevertheless they have been
deprived of a right to be considered, as a result of the
interim orders passed by this Court. It is contended that in
terms of the GNA Regulations, if the petitioners did not
comply with the requirements, they could be ignored while
the next in line is eligible for consideration. However, since
interim orders have been passed by this Court reserving 900
MW in favour of the petitioners, the next in line is deprived of
an opportunity of consideration. It is also a fact that the
seniority which would be lost by the petitioners, have been
protected at the hands of this Court. It is therefore
submitted that at any rate the seniority of the impleading
applicants need to be protected and restored at the hands of
this Court.
12. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.Gurudas
S.Kannur, appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Rebuen Jacob,
Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1-State and
respondent No.2 - Karnataka Renewable Energy
Development Ltd., Sri.S.S.Naganad, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondent No.3, Sri.K. Aravind Kamath,
-18-
Additional Solicitor General of India, Sri.K.G. Raghavan,
Sri.Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsels, and Sri.Deep Rao
Palepu along with Sri. Sudheesh S Kesarkar, learned
Counsels for impleading applicants and perused the material
on records.
13. The primary contention of the petitioners is that
since two categories are made viz., the Park Developers on
the one hand and all the others on the other hand, but since
one single queue of applicants is provided for, the Park
Developers are put at a disadvantage. It is their contention
that since authorization is required to be obtained by Park
Developers, at the hands of the Government, the time
required by the Park Developers to obtain authorization
should have been kept in mind. On facts, it was submitted
that the petitioners have filed application seeking
authorization, more than three months ago and authorization
is yet to be issued. It is the contention of the petitioners
that since proper guidelines are not prescribed under the
GNA Regulations to the competent Government in the matter
of grant of authorization, the State Government is acting
-19-
arbitrarily, while forcing the petitioners to obtain Government
Order. Although the petitioners have made further
application to secure Government Order, there again
payment of fee has become an issue. In another writ
petition pending consideration before this Court, interim
orders are passed restricting the State Government from
seeking payment of fee, till the disposal of the writ petition.
When these difficulties faced by the petitioners are brought
to the notice of the CTUIL, the CTUIL has not taken any
initiative to redress the grievance of the petitioners.
14. During the course of these proceedings, the
petitioners sought leave of this Court to approach the Central
Electricity Regulatory Commission to relax the requirement of
obtaining an authorization from the State Government,
having regard to Regulation No.41 of the Central Electricity
Regulatory Commission (Connectivity and General Network
Access to the Interstate Transmission System) Regulations,
2022. Accordingly, by order dated 17.03.2025 this Court
granted permission to the petitioners to approach the
Commission while also directing the Commission to consider
-20-
the representation that would be given by the petitioners for
relaxation and to take a decision to put an end to the
litigation. However, it appears that the Central Commission
rejected the representation given by the petitioners.
15. It is noticeable that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in
the case of Reliance Energy Limited and Another /vs./
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd.
and Others (2007) 8 SCC 1, has held that the standards
applied by Courts in judicial review must be justified by
constitutional principles which govern the proper exercise of
public power in a democracy. It was held that Articles 21 and
14 are the heart of the chapter on fundamental rights. They
cover various aspects of life. "Level playing field" was held
to be an important concept while construing Article 19(1)(g)
of the Constitution. It was further held in paragraphs-36 and
38 which read as hereunder:
"36. We find merit in this civil appeal. Standards
applied by courts in judicial review must be justified by
constitutional principles which govern the proper
exercise of public power in a democracy. Article 14 of
the Constitution embodies the principle of "non-
-21-
discrimination". However, it is not a free-standing
provision. It has to be read in conjunction with rights
conferred by other articles like Article 21 of the
Constitution. The said Article 21 refers to "right to life".
It includes "opportunity". In our view, as held in the
latest judgment of the Constitution Bench of nine
Judges in I.R. Coelho.v.State of T.N. [(2007) 2 SCC 1],
Articles 21/14 are the heart of the chapter on
fundamental rights. They cover various aspects of life.
"Level playing field" is an important concept while
construing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is this
doctrine which is invoked by REL/HDEC in the present
case. When Article 19(1)(g) confers fundamental right
to carry on business to a company, it is entitled to
invoke the said doctrine of "level playing field". We may
clarify that this doctrine is, however, subject to public
interest. In the world of globalisation, competition is an
important factor to be kept in mind. The doctrine of
"level playing field" is an important doctrine which is
embodied in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This is
because the said doctrine provides space within which
equally placed competitors are allowed to bid so as to
subserve the larger public interest. "Globalisation", in
essence, is liberalisation of trade. Today India has
dismantled licence raj. The economic reforms
introduced after 1992 have brought in the concept of
"globalisation". Decisions or acts which result in unequal
and discriminatory treatment, would violate the doctrine
of "level playing field" embodied in Article 19(1)(g).
-22-
Time has come, therefore, to say that Article 14 which
refers to the principle of "equality" should not be read
as a stand alone item but it should be read in
conjunction with Article 21 which embodies several
aspects of life. There is one more aspect which needs to
be mentioned in the matter of implementation of the
aforestated doctrine of "level playing field". According to
Lord Goldsmith, commitment to the "rule of law" is the
heart of parliamentary democracy. One of the important
elements of the "rule of law" is legal certainty. Article
14 applies to government policies and if the policy or
act of the Government, even in contractual matters,
fails to satisfy the test of "reasonableness", then such
an act or decision would be unconstitutional.
38. When tenders are invited, the terms and
conditions must indicate with legal certainty, norms and
benchmarks. This "legal certainty" is an important
aspect of the rule of law. If there is vagueness or
subjectivity in the said norms it may result in unequal
and discriminatory treatment. It may violate doctrine of
"level playing field".
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Applying the tests as expounded by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, this Court finds, in the present context, that the
grievances of the petitioners is well founded. The
respondents, more particularly the CTUIL and the CERC are
-23-
aware of the difficulties faced by the petitioners in the matter
of obtaining authorization at the hands of the State
Government. The CERC declined to entertain a
representation given by the petitioners to redress their
grievance. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion
that there is substance in the contentions of the petitioners
that they have been discriminated against by virtue of a
stipulation in the GNA Regulations requiring a Park Developer
to obtain authorization at the hands of the Government. The
problem for the petitioners/Park Developers is further
complicated at the hands of the State Government in
insisting that the petitioners have to apply and obtain a
Government Order, although there is no such requirement
under the GNA Regulations. There can be no doubt that the
respondent authorities have failed to create a Level Playing
Field for the petitioners.
17. This Court is also of the considered opinion that it
is bounden duty of the CERC which formulated the GNA
Regulations and which is also empowered to remove
difficulties faced by the petitioners, to have considered
-24-
issuing directions relaxing the requirement and the CERC has
failed in its duties.
18. This Court is also of the considered opinion that
the apprehensions of the impleading applicants is unfounded.
The petitioners are not before this Court to seek out of turn
consideration of their applications. The petitioners
grievances are genuine in as much as, the GNA Regulations
do not prescribe any guidelines to the competent
Government for grant of authorization; no time frame is fixed
to enable the competent Government to consider and grant
authorization; as a consequence, though the petitioners have
filed the application before the CTUIL, their application is not
considered by CTUIL on the ground that the petitioners have
not secured authorization at the hands of the State
Government. The other applicants who are in the queue are
allowed to by-pass the petitioners on the ground that the
petitioners are not qualified. This Court is therefore of the
considered opinion that the respondent authorities have
failed to create a level playing field for the applicants. The
respondent authorities have failed to notice this anomalous
-25-
fcsituation where, by the time the petitioners secure
authorization at the hands of the State Government, the
connectivity gets exhausted and the petitioners will be left
high and dry. The least that was required from the
respondent authorities and the GNA Regulations was to
provide separate queues for Renewable Power Developers
and Renewable Power 'Park Developers'.
19. For the reasons stated above, this Court proceeds
to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.
(ii) The interim directions issued by this Court on 16.01.2025 reserving 890 MW in Tumkur-II sub-station and 600 MW in Bellary sub-station of connectivity for consideration of the applications filed by the petitioners, shall stand extended till authorization is granted by the respondent State Government, in favour of the petitioners.
(iii) Liberty is also reserved to the respondent authorities (CERC and CTUIL) to reconsider the applications of the petitioners and grant -26- in-principle approval/ connectivity to the petitioners subject to they obtaining authorization at the hands of the State Government.
(iv) I.A.No.1/2024 filed by the CTUIL stands rejected, consequently setting aside the orders dated 30.08.2024 and 02.09.2024 passed by CTUIL, while restoring the applications of the petitioners for re-consideration.
(v) The impleading applications are formally allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioners shall carryout the amendment in the cause title.
Ordered accordingly.
Pending I.As. if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/KLY CT: JL