Karnataka High Court
A.S.Byara Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 22 March, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
W.P.No.55420/2016 (GM-RES)
C/W
W.P.Nos.55421-55422/2016 AND W.P.No.58097/2016
(GM-RES)
W.P.No 55420/2016
BETWEEN:
A.S.BYARA REDDY
S/O SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/A ANEMADAGU VILLAGE
BASHETTYHALLI POST
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
C.O. & M DIVISION
BESCOM, CHINTHAMANI
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
3. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
CORPORATE OFFICE,
ROOM NO.1, GROUND FLOOR BLOCK-2
2
K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DSM
4. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
CORPORATE OFFICE
K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-5600001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER DIRECTOR (MD)
5. KARNATAKA ELELCTRICITY
REGULATORY COMMISSION
6TH & 7TH FLOOR, MAHALAXMI CHAMBERS
NO.9/2, M G ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R B SATYANARAYANA SINGH, AGA. FOR R1
SRI. T. S. AMAR KUMAR, ADV. FOR R5
SRI. SRI S SRIRANGA, ADV. FOR R2-4)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT DTD.29.8.2016 VIDE ANNEX-L ISSUED BY
THE R-2 TERMINATING THE PPA AGREEMENT DTD.31.12.2015
ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PETITIONER AND R-2 AND ETC.
W.P.Nos.55421-55422/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. A. V. NARASIMHA REDDY
S/O A VENKATA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
ALAGURKI VILLAGE,
DIBBURAHALLI POST
BASHETTYHALLI HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
3
BANGALORE - 560 001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
C.O. & M DIVISION, BESCOM,
CHINTHAMANI
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
3. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
CORPORATE OFFICE,
ROOM NO.1, GROUND FLOOR BLOCK-2,
K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DSM.
4. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
CORPORATE OFFICE,
K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER DIRECTOR (MD)
5. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION, 6TH & 7TH FLOOR,
MAHALAXMI CHAMBERS,
NO.9/2, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R B SATYANARAYANA SINGH, AGA. FOR R1
SRI. SRI S SRIRANGA, ADV. FOR R2-4
SRI. T. S. AMAR KUMAR, ADV. FOR R5)
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT/OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DTD:29.8.2016
ISSUED BY THE R-2 TERMINATING THE PPA AGREEMENT
DTD:30.12.2015 [ANNEXURE-D & D1] ENTERED INTO BETWEEN
PETITIONER AND R-2 AND ETC.
W.P.No.58097/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. O. N. THIMMA REDDY
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT OBENAHALLI VILLAGE
4
CHELDIGANAHALLI PANCHAYATH
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT -563 135
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
C. O & M DIVISION BESCOM
KOLAR-563 101
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
3. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
C. O & M DIVISION BESCOM
SRINIVASAPURA-563135
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
4. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
CORPORATE OFFICE, ROOM NO 1,
GROUND FLOOR BLOCK - 2, K R CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560001
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DSM
5. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
CORPORATE, K R CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER DIRECTOR (MD)
6. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION, 6TH & 7TH FLOOR,
MAHALAXMI CHAMBERS
NO. 9/2, M G ROAD, BENGALURU-01
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R B SATYANARAYANA SINGH, AGA. FOR R1
SRI. SRI S SRIRANGA, ADV. FOR R2-5
SRI. T. S. AMAR KUMAR, ADV. FOR R6)
5
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 29.09.2016 AT ANNEX-K ISSUED BY
THE R-2 TERMINATING THE PPA AGREEMENT DATED
03.03.2016 ENGTERED INTO BETWEEN PETITIONER AND R-2;
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners in these petitions are before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by the termination of the Power Purchase Agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondents.
2. For the purpose of narration of facts to enable the disposal, the case pleaded in W.P.No.55420/2016 is noticed.
3. The petitioners 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 endorsement dated 29.08.2016 terminating the agreement dated 31.12.2015 is issued. The petitioners 6 claiming to be aggrieved are seeking that the same be quashed and a mandamus be issued to the respondents to extend the time by a further period. Similar is the situation in the accompanying matters except with the change in the date of the endorsement issued whereby termination of the agreement is made. In certain of the matters, the contention is also that the work has been completed and in that light, the extension has not been sought, but they seek the implementation of the terms of the agreement for purchase of power.
4. Be that as it may, presently the issue is only with regard to the termination 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 7 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 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 all these petitions, the respective notice of termination issued to the petitioners and assailed in the respective writ petitions stand quashed. 8 However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to issue show cause notices afresh, secure reply from the petitioners 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 notices if any, to be issued by the respondents shall be issued to the petitioners herein within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners on receipt of show cause notices shall file their respective replies within two weeks from the date of receipt of such notices. The respondents shall thereupon complete the process of consideration of the reply and the orders 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 9 the principles of natural justice to be complied, the same shall not give a right to the petitioners to commence the work so as to complete the project in the meanwhile. In that circumstance, if the petitioners undertake any further work relating to the project for its completion from this date onwards till the process of providing the opportunity is completed and whether such progress should be taken into consideration or not is a matter left open to be considered by the respondents, but the petitioners shall not claim any equities in that regard unless the respondents choose to consider and accept the same to treat the project as completed.
9. Further while considering the explanation of the petitioners, 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 petitioners are still aggrieved by the 10 action of the respondents, liberty is left to them to avail their remedies in accordance with law.
All these petitions stand 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 in any of these petitions.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms