Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.11 It was the case of the Appellant herein that the Appellant faced numerous problems in executing the project, namely, the delay in obtaining approvals of the Government and its instrumentalities, delay in the DC issuing orders for land conversion, delay in according approval for evacuation line etc., as a result of which it was unable to achieve the deadline for commissioning on 03.01.2017. Based on the same, the Appellant has sought for approval of the extension.

7. ISSUE NO.1:-

7.1 Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that pursuant to the Government of Karnataka Order dated 26.08.2014, the nodal agency, KREDL invited 'online' applications on 09.10.2014 from eligible individual agricultural land owning farmers to become Solar Power Developers (SPDs). He vehemently submitted that the Govt.'s policy was conceived in an effort to promote solar energy projects preferably by land owning farmers and after requisite scrutiny, the nodal agency issued letters to the Appellants on 17.03.2015 for development of the solar projects with an instruction to execute the Power Purchase Agreement ( PPA) with first Respondent . The PPA came to be signed between the parties on 03.07.2015 which among others envisaged a guaranteed tariff of Rs.8.40 per unit. The said PPA was approved by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission vide its approval letter dated 01.09.2015 which was handed over to the SPD in the 2nd week of September 2015. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the PPA, the solar projects were given 18 months for completion and accordingly the COD was fixed as 02.01.2017. Learned counsel for the Appellants was quick to submit that the implementation of the solar projects required a number of activities such as formation of SPV, approval for evacuation of power, approval for land conversion, approval for sparing of bay for lease, approval for line charging etc.. While the first activity i.e. formation of SPV was under the control of the Appellants, the other approvals were to be accorded by Govt.

7.7 Learned counsel, appearing for the first Respondent submitted that the first Respondent/ Govt. of Karnataka has agreed to grant six months' extension of COD but all the Escoms were directed by the State Commission to advice all land owning solar developers to approach the State Commission and seek for approval of the extension of time. Admittedly, the Appellants faced numerous problems in executing the project, namely, the delay in obtaining approvals of the Government and its instrumentalities including order for land conversion, approval for evacuation line etc.. However, such clearances/approvals are of routine in nature and are generally involved in execution of all the projects. Learned counsel further pointed out that the onus of obtaining all necessary approvals was on the Appellant as per Article 2.1.1 of the PPA and in view of the delayed execution of the project, the Appellant would only be entitled to varied tariff applicable as on the date of Commercial Operation. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the delays by Govt. agencies cannot be termed as events of force majeure due to the fact that Article 8.3 clearly sets out the events which constitute Force majeure. Learned counsel for the first Respondent further submitted that in case of a force majeure, requisite notice as contemplated in the PPA has to be issued by the Appellants to the Respondents. The State Commission has rightly interpreted the clause of force majeure and ruled that none of the reasons or events cited by the Appellants for delay in the commissioning of the projects falls under the force majeure events. 7.8 Learned counsel further contended that while referring to various dates of activities submitted by the Appellants, it is crystal clear that at every stage, it has been the Appellants who have acted in a belated manner which have been duly noted and commented by the State Commission in the impugned order. For an instance, that the PPA was signed on 03.07.2015, the Appellants applied for conversion of land only on 16.02.2016 i.e. after lapse of seven months from the effective date for which no explanation has been justified by the Appellants. Similar was the cases for evacuation & bay approvals. Regarding the contention of the Appellants that the established principles on force majeure in the case of Satyabartha Ghose v. Mugneerm Bangurare has not been followed in the present case, Learned counsel pointed out that the factual matrix of the case cited are different from the present case and hence no reliance can be placed on the same. Summing up his arguments, learned counsel reiterated that the Appeal lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed.