Karnataka High Court
B N Chandrappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.3244/2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
B. N. CHANDRAPPA,
S/O. P. NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
BHAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOSSUR POST,
GAURIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(By SRI. RAJENDRA M. S., ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
ENERGY DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA ELECTRIICTY REGULATORY
COMMISSION,
6TH & 7TH FLOOR,
MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
NO.9/2, M G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2
3. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
K R CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
C O & M DIVISION,
BESCOM, CHIKKABALLAPUR,
CHITRADURGA - 571 112.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. KIRAN KUMAR T.L., AGA FOR R.1,
SRI. T. S. AMAR KUMAR, ADV., FOR R.2,
SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV., FOR R.3 & R.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE WORK ORDER AS
PER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.12.2016 VIDE
ANNEX-A IN TERMS OF THE POWER PURCHASE
AGREEMENT DATED 23.09.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE - D.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue work order as per the representation dated 19.12.2016 as at Annexure-A to the petition.
3
2. The petitioner who is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.119 of Bhaktarahalli village, Hossur Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapur District, has set up a poultry farm in the said land. In that view of the matter, the petitioner having the facility for installing the rooftop solar power project is stated to have entered into a Power Purchase Agreement dated 23.09.2015 with respondent No.3 and 4. The case of the petitioner is that the work has been completed by installing the necessary equipments and in that view, the work order is necessary to be issued. The petitioner, therefore has made a representation dated 19.12.2016 seeking that the same be considered and the work order be issued. Since respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not taken a decision on the same the petitioner is before this Court.
3. This Court, at this juncture need not come to a conclusion with regard to the terms agreed under 4 the Power Purchase Agreement dated 23.09.2015, as it is a matter to be looked into by respondent Nos.3 and 4 while taking note of the representation submitted by the petitioner. Needless to mention, if the consideration is in favour of the petitioner, further action to complete transactions would have to be taken. Such consideration, in any event shall be made when the representation is taken note and disposed of in accordance with law.
4. To enable such consideration, the petitioner shall file one more copy of the representation and all supporting documents with respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 shall take a decision on obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority or place it before the competent authority for taking decision in the matter. The decision taken on the representation shall be communicated to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but not later than four 5 weeks from the date on which the copy is submitted. Needless to mention, if the consideration is in favour of the petitioner, further action shall be taken in an expeditious manner.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE PMR