Appellate Tribunal For Electricity
Mr. Vikram Bhatnagar vs Karnataka Electricity Regulatory ... on 16 February, 2026
IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
APPEAL No. 104 of 2018
Dated : 16th February, 2026
Present: Hon'ble Ms. Seema Gupta, Technical Member
Hon'ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member
In the matter of:
1. Mr. Vikram Bhatnagar
S/o. Late Shri Virendra Kumar Bhatnagar,
R/o. E-1/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi - 110057
2. Subbareddy
S/o. Sh. Chikkanarayanappa
R/o. Kaiwara, Village, Kaiwara Post,
Chintamani Talu, Chikkaballapur District,
Karnataka - 562101 ... Appellant
Versus
1. Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission
Through its Secretary
No. 16, C-1, Millers Tank Bed Area,
Vasanthanagara, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560052
Email: [email protected]
2. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
BESCOM K.R. Circle, Bangalore, Karnataka-560001
Email: [email protected] ... Respondent (s)
Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Shri Venkatesh
Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Bharath Gangadharan
Nihal Bhardwaj
Siddharth Nigotia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 1 of 17
Shivam Kumar
Kartikay Trivedi
Aashwyn Singh
Punyam Bhutani
Suhael Buttan
Himangi Kapoor
Vineet Kumar
Aditya Tiwari
Nikunj Bhatnagar
Aayush Sinha
Aditya Vardhan Sharma
Anant Singh
Kunal Veer Chopra
Nehal Jain
Vedant Choudhary
Abhishek Nangia
Siddharth Joshi
Mohit Gupta
Harsh Vardhan for App. 1 & 2
Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Darpan K.M.
for Res. 1
Mr. S. Sriranga, Sr. Adv.
Sumana Naganand
Garima Jain
Nidhi Gupta
Tushar Kanti Mohindroo
Arnav Khanna
for Res. 2
JUDGMENT
PER HON'BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 7th November, 2017 passed by 1st Respondent - Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") whereby the Commission has sought to provide some relief to the individuals who proposed to install Solar Roof Top Photovoltaic (SRTP) projects in terms of the previous tariff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 2 of 17 orders dated 10.10.2013 & 02.05.2016 and whose Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with the Distribution Licensees were cancelled on account of non-commissioning of the power projects within the stipulated period.
2. The Appellant No. 1 is the legal representative of deceased Dr. Virendra Kumar Bhatnagar (the original Appellant) who intended to set up four SRTP projects at Village Kaiwara, Kaiwara Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, District Chikkaballapur, Karnataka which were divided into two groups i.e. Group A and Group B. Appellant No. 2 is the owner of the rooftop upon which the power projects were proposed to be installed.
3. Facts in brief leading with filing of this appeal are narrated hereinbelow.
4. With a view to encourage solar power projects in the State of Karnataka and to provide enabling mechanism including tariff for such projects, the 1st Respondent i.e. the Commission issued the tariff order dated 10th October, 2013 determining tariff of Rs.9.56 per unit for roof top solar projects to be established in the State of Karnataka. Thereafter, the Government of Karnataka also framed solar policy which was notified on 22nd May, 2014 and which envisaged establishing of roof top solar plants with total capacity of 400 MW during the period 2014 to 2021 in the State. In pursuance to the same, 2nd Respondent - Bangalore Electricity Supply
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 3 of 17 Company Ltd. ( in short BESCOM), the licensee, framed a scheme for solar roof top projects to be established in the State of Karnataka and notified the same on 7th November, 2014.
5. On the basis of the tariff order dated 10th October, 2013, 2nd Respondent accorded approval to the Appellants for Group A projects i.e. 200 kWP project at Kalwara and 500 kWP at Bettiganhalli. Accordingly, the Appellant No. 2 entered into Power Purchase Agreement with BESCOM on 31st January, 2015 in respect of these projects. The terms and conditions of the tariff order dated 10th October, 2013 were incorporated in the PPAs and the tariff for the projects was agreed to be Rs.9.56 per unit.
6. The Appellants submitted application for setting up of Group B projects on 12th August, 2015. Vide letter dated 18th August, 2015, BESCOM accorded approval for installing these projects i.e. 300kWP project near Exchange Office Road and 500 kWP project at Bettiganhalli. PPA dated 20th August, 2015 was entered into between Appellant No. 2 and BESCOM with regard to these Group B projects. These PPAs also mentioned tariff at Rs.9.56/- per unit based upon the tariff order dated 10th October, 2013.
7. It appears that BESCOM had received requests from various solar power developers for extension of time period for installation of SRTP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 4 of 17 projects on the ground that they were facing multiple problems. Accordingly, BESCOM issued circular dated 17th November, 2015 specifically permitting the extension of time limit for completing the power projects subject to condition that the power developers paid re-registration fees as stipulated therein. As per this circular, extension of further one year after completion of the original 180 days period was granted to the solar power projects above 50 kWA capacity.
8. In pursuance to the said circular dated 17th November, 2015, BESCOM issued letter dated 29th December, 2015 to the Appellants for extension of the time limit for installation of Group A projects after duly paying re-registration fees. Letter specifically mentioned that the time extension is valid for 12 months i.e. 30th July, 2015 to 29th July, 2016.
9. On 3rd February, 2016, tripartite agreement setting out the duties and obligations of the utility/licensee, power developer and roof top owner inter se for the purpose of implementation of roof top installations for group A projects was executed between the BESCOM, Dr. Virendra Kumar Bhatnagar (Solar Roof Top Developer) and Appellant No. 2 Shri Subba Reddy (Roof Top Owner).
10. Vide letter dated 18th February, 2016, BESCOM granted extension of time period of further 12 months from the date of expiry of PPAs for installation of Group B projects. Accordingly, another tripartite agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 5 of 17 dated 28th March, 2016 was executed between the BESCOM and the Appellants for the purpose of implementation of the projects.
11. A fresh tariff order seeking to re-determine the tariff norms for SRTP project was issued by the Commission on 2nd May, 2016 in supersession of the earlier tariff order dated 10th October, 2013. This was applicable to all new Grid connected solar roof top and solar photovoltaic power plants entering into power purchase agreements and commissioned on or after 2nd May, 2016 upto 31st March, 2017.
12. An advisory dated 6th May, 2016 was issued by the Commission to the Government of Karnataka stating that no time extension shall be granted for commissioning of the power plants in respect of which the PPAs have already been executed at the tariff fixed in the previous tariff order dated 10th October, 2013. On the basis of the said advisory, BESCOM issued a circular dated 18th May, 2016 to the effect that no time extension shall be granted for commissioning of the power plants in respect of which the PPAs have already been executed at tariff fixed in the previous tariff order dated 10th October, 2013.
13. On 31st August, 2016, BESCOM terminated the PPAs executed between it and the Appellants in respect of Group A projects on the ground that the Appellants have failed to commission the projects within 180 days as per the Letter of Approval (LoA).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 6 of 17
14. On 21st September, 2016, Appellants issued letter to the Hon'ble Minister of Power, Government of Karnataka about the delay in grant of connectivity to the power projects as per the scheduled date i.e. 29th July, 2016.
15. Vide letter dated 11th January, 2017, BESCOM cancelled the allotment of Group B projects to the Appellants.
16. Vide letter dated 10th February, 2017, the Appellants requested BESCOM to synchronize and connect the STRP projects to the grid as per the tariff being offered by BESCOM without prejudice to their rights, citing financial strain and wastage of power being generated by SRTP projects.
17. BESCOM issued a letter dated 16th February, 2017 to the Secretary of the Commission with the request to commission the SRTP projects regarding which works were complete in all respects and which was ready for commissioning in order to avoid wastage of solar power being generated by these projects.
18. The Appellants submitted work completion report on 16th February, 2017 which was ratified by Chief Electrical Inspector. The office of Chief Electrical Inspector issued electrical safety approval to Group B projects of the Appellants on 8th June, 2017. The Commission issued fresh tariff order dated 15th September, 2017 stating that the tariff payable to solar power generators for the energy injected into the system of Distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 7 of 17 Licensee's either under net metering or gross metering will be entitled to APPC rates notified by the Commission or Rs.4 per unit whichever is less.
19. Thereafter, the Commission passed order dated 7th November, 2017, which has been impugned in this appeal. The concluding portion of the order which is material is extracted herein below:-
"a. A consumer having executed a PPA with any ESCOM in respect of his/her proposed SRTPV plant in terms of the Commission's Order dated 10.10.2013 but, having such a PPA cancelled for the delay in commissioning of the project within the stipulated period, shall be allowed to commission the project and shall be entitled for the revised tariff, as in the Commission's Order dated 02.05.2016, subject to he/she entering into a fresh PPA and commissioning the project on or before 31.12.2017.
b. A consumer having executed a PPA with any ESCOM, in respect of his/her proposed SRTPV plant in terms of the Commission's Order dated 02.05.2016, but having such PPA cancelled for delay in commissioning of the project within the stipulated period, shall be allowed to commission the project at the tariff of Rs.3.57 per unit being the notified APPC for FY18
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 8 of 17
for the term of the PPA, subject to he/she entering into a fresh PPA and commissioning the project on or before 31.12.2017.
c. A consumer having executed PPA with any ESCOM in respect of his/her proposed SRTPV plant in terms of the Commission's Order dated 10.10.2013 or 02.05.2016 but, having such a PPA cancelled for reasons other than non commissioning of the plant within the stipulated period shall have the option to commission the SRTPV plant with the capacity as in the original PPA and shall be entitled to a tariff of Rs.3.57 per unit, being the notified APPC for FY18 for the term of the PPA, subject to he/she entering into a fresh PPA and commissioning the project on or before 31.12.2017.
d. In respect of the plants, in all above cases, all the technical and operational conditions/specifications shall be applicable, as per the relevant Orders, Regulations and the Code.
e. In all cases of consumers having executed PPA with any ESCOM in respect of his/her proposed SRTPV plant in terms of the Commission's Order dated 10.10.2013 but not having
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 9 of 17
commissioned the SRTPV plants on or before 31.12.2017 and whose matter relating to such a PPA is not before any Court of Law, the concerned ESCOM shall take action to terminate the PPA as per the terms of the PPА.
f. All ESCOMs, shall communicate this Order to all the SRTPV PPA holders who have not yet commissioned the project and the gist of this Order shall be published in the local news paper.
This Order is signed and issued by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission on this 7th day of November, 2017.
20. In paragraph No. 4 of the impugned order, there is reference to communication dated 27th September, 2016 addressed by the Commission to all ESCOMS in the State of Karnataka. The said paragraph is relevant and is quoted below:-
"4. The Commission, subsequently, in its communication dated 27th September, 2016 addressed to all the ESCOMs, decided that there will be no revision in the time limit allowed for commissioning of the SRTPV projects and the ESCOMs were directed to ensure completion and commissioning of the SRTPV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 10 of 17
projects on existing roofs within the stipulated period of six months so as to be eligible for the tariff of Rs 9.56 per unit agreed to in the PPA executed and that if there was any delay in commissioning of the project within the stipulated period, the consumer concerned would be eligible for the revised tariff, as per the Commission's Order dated 02.05.2016."
21. The Appellants are seeking setting aside of the said order dated 7th November, 2017 of the Commission on the following grounds :-
(a) Vide the said order, drastic and significant reduction of tariff has been carried out without following the procedure prescribed under Section 64 Regulation read with 86(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003;
(b) While passing the said order, the Commission has violated the principles of natural justice by not calling upon the affected parties to present their views regarding the reduction of tariff; and
(c) The Commission, in passing the said order, has mysteriously related the tariff of SRTP projects to APPC rate prevailing in the State of Karnataka which has no basis whatsoever and thus, the order is contrary to the mandate of the Electricity Act envisaged under Section 86(e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 11 of 17
22. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent. We have perused the impugned order as well as written submissions filed by Learned Counsels.
23. At the outset, we are constrained to note that we are unable to discern the wisdom of the Appellants in filing of the instant appeal assailing therein the order dated 7th November, 2017 of the Commission. Concededly, the PPAs dated 31st January, 2015 (for Group A projects) and 20th August, 2015 (for Group B projects) executed between the Appellant No. 2 and the BESCOM have already been terminated by BESCOM on 31st August, 2016 and 11th January, 2017 respectively. The cancellation of these PPAs is not under challenge in this appeal. Therefore, even if we accept the contentions of the Appellants and set aside the said order dated 7th November, 2017 of the Commission, the Appellants would not get any benefit from the same for the reason that the PPAs executed between them and the BESCOM would remain as terminated. Any benefit or relief that might be available to them by virtue of this impugned order would be snatched from them and they would not be in a position to sell power generated by their SRTP projects to the Licensees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 12 of 17
24. Even otherwise also, no infirmity or legal lacuna can be seen in the impugned order dated 7th November, 2017 of the Commission. What led the Commission to pass the said order, has been explained in paragraph Nos. 5 & 6 of the order which are extracted herein below:-
"5. In the meanwhile, it was brought to the notice of the Commission that a large number of PPAs, executed in respect of the SRTPV projects have been terminated or in the process of being terminated for reasons like, not commissioned within stipulate time, extension of the roof area of the existing building in violation of the terms of the PPA/sanction order or the roof on which the SRTPV plant is installed is not a building, as specified by the State Government, etc. It was also brought to the notice of the Commission that, such consumers have come forward to commission the SRTPV plants at rates different from that agreed in the PPAs.
6. The Commission notes that the commissioning of the affected SRTPV plants, involving large investments by respective consumers, would be in the larger public interest. These SRTPV plants, not being commissioned within the stipulated time cannot, however, now be made eligible for the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 13 of 17
tariff fixed under the relevant Order of the Commission, though the limit on installed capacity could be made as applicable under the relevant Order."
25. Manifestly therefore, the representations received from the individuals intending to install STRP projects whose PPAs had been terminated or were in the process of being terminated for the reasons that they were unable to commission the power projects within the stipulate time or were in the process of installing the power projects in violation of the norms, weighed with the Commission in order to provide some relief to such individuals. Hence the Commission issued the said order to provide some concession to such individuals so that they may Commission their power projects.
26. Undeniably, Section 62, 64, 86(1)(b) and 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the Electricity Regulatory Commission to regulate electricity tariffs, procurement process and other related matters. The Regulatory Commission are also empowered to review, revise or modify the tariffs either suo motto or upon application of concerned party.
27. Perusal of the impugned order of the Commission would reveal that the Commission has not proceeded to determine the tariff for SRTP projects de novo. It has only taken note of the difficulties faced by
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 14 of 17 individuals intending to set up SRTP project in setting up and commissioning such projects within the stipulate time and the fact that such individuals had invested large amount of money in the projects, and thus stepped in to save such projects by providing an opportunity for the developers of these projects to commission these projects albeit at a lower tariff. Even the Appellants herein had also made such representation dated 10th February, 2017 to BESCOM requesting it to forthwith synchronize their SRTP projects to the grid as per tariff being offered by BESCOM, although, without prejudice to their rights. It is also to be noted that the Appellants have executed a fresh PPA dated 21st December, 2017 with the BESCOM at reduced tariff without assailing the termination notices dated 31st August, 2016 and 11th January, 2017.
28. We are unable to accept the contention on behalf of the Appellant that the impugned order has been passed mysteriously, in violation of the principle of natural justice and without following the proper procedure as prescribed under the Electricity Act . It is true that procedure to be followed in passing the tariff order is prescribed under Section 64 of the Electricity Act. However, as already noted herein above, the impugned order passed by the Commission is not a tariff order at all and the same has been issued by the Commission only to provide succor to the individuals who had been
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 15 of 17 unable to Commission the SRTP projects within stipulate time and their PPAs having been either cancelled or in the process of being cancelled.
29. We are also unable to hold that the reduction of tariff as provided under the impugned order is unlawful or arbitrary. To the contrary, the impugned order enables the individuals who had failed to commission their SRTP projects within the stipulate period of time and whose PPAs has been terminated, to commission for their projects and sell power to the distribution companies at a price which, though, is lesser than that agreed under the PPAs. In fact, the impugned order of the Commission is to the benefit of such individuals and can by no means be said to be detrimental to such individuals.
30. It was argued on behalf of the Appellant that vide letters dated 29th December, 2015 and 16th February, 2016, BESCOM had granted extension of further one year to the Appellants for commissioning of the power projects of Group A and Group B respectively in pursuance to the circular dated 17th November, 2014 issued by it and therefore the termination letters dated 31st August, 2016 and 11th January, 2017 having been issued before the expiry of such extended period of one year, are baseless as well legally untenable. It is sought to be argued that the termination of the PPAs executed by Appellants with Respondents, is illegal and cannot be sustained. These arguments have been noted only
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 16 of 17 to be rejected for the reason that such termination of the PPAs has not been assailed by the Appellants in this appeal. Reference, in this regard to previous judgement of this Tribunal dated 20th March, 2024 in Appeal No. 137 of 2022 & Batch on behalf of the Appellants is totally misplaced for the reason that in those appeals, specific prayer was made for setting aside of PPA termination notices.
Conclusion
31. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of February, 2026.
(Virender Bhat) (Seema Gupta)
Judicial Member Technical Member (Electricity)
✓
REPORTABLE / NON REPORTABLE
js
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Page 17 of 17