Writ Petition No. 355 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1139 WP No. 355 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 355 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: M/S. SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO.7,(OLD NO. 24), 1ST AND 2ND FLOORS, 'SUNANJAYA', 1ST CROSS, KUMARA KOT ROAD, BEHIND HOTEL JANARDHAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE/ASSISTANT MANAGER SRI. VINAYAK PURANIK. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, …PETITIONER DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ROOM NO. 236, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR STREET, BANGALORE 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1139 WP No. 355 of 2025 2. BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 001, REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL MANAGER. 3. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (CESC), NO. 29. VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE, HINKAL, MYSURU 570 107, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 4. MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (MESCOM), CORPORATE OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, MESCOM BHAVAN, BEJAI, KAVOOR CROSS ROAD, MANGALURU 575 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER. 5. HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (HESCOM), P.B. ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALI - 580 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER 6. GULBARAGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (GESCOM), STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI 585 102, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1139 WP No. 355 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER. 7. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (KERC) NO. 16, C-1, MILLER TANK BED AREA, VASANTHA NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 052, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute that the petitioner is generating electricity from molasses and JSW is generating electricity from coal. It is also submitted at the bar that Section 11 order passed under the Act of 2003 has spent its time. Pursuant to the adjudication, the Commission has passed an order holding that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.4.75/- per unit generated and the petitioner is not entitled for Rs.4.86/- as decided by the State Government. On perusal of Section 111 of the Act of 2003, it is apparent that the impugned order at Annexure-P is appealable before the Appellate Authority. 7. It is noticed that the Commission has noted the order passed in favour of the JSW pursuant to the settlement arrived between the JSW and the State Government. However, the Commission has also taken a view that it is not a party to the said arrangement and the said arrangement is not binding on the Commission. 8. In case, the petitioner is to contend that the petitioner is also similarly placed as JSW and entitled to similar tariff paid to JSW, the petitioner has to establish the same before the Appellate Authority by raising such contention. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1139 WP No. 355 of 2025 9. Considering the contentions raised before this Court, this Court is of the view that before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is to be permitted to implead the State of Karnataka as one of the respondents and the State of Karnataka to place the materials before the Appellate Authority as to on what basis Rs.7.25/- is ordered to be paid to JSW. The Appellate Authority shall consider all materials on record and shall pass appropriate order by taking all the relevant factors. The disposal of this writ petition, shall not be construed as findings on the merits of the claim of either of the parties 10. The time spent in prosecuting this petition from the date of filing shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation, if any. 11. Registry to return the certified copies of the impugned order produced before this Court, if it is produced. 12. In case, the appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall consider the interim application, if any filed, as expeditiously as possible. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1139 WP No. 355 of 2025 13. With these observations, the writ petition is
Arguments
(BY SRI. RAJKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6; V/O/D 13.01.2025, NOTICE TO R7 IS D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED. 26.11.2024 PASSED IN O.P.NO. 29 TO 33/2023 PASSED BY THE R-7 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-P) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY RS.7.25/- PER UNIT TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE POWER SUPPLIED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1139 WP No. 355 of 2025 Sri. S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6. 2. In this petition, the petitioner is questioning the orders dated 26.11.2024 passed in OP No.29/2023 to 33/2023 passed by respondent No.7. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to respondents to pay Rs.7.25/- per unit to the petitioner towards electricity generated by the petitioner which is supplied by the petitioner to respondent Nos.2 to 6. The petitioner also has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the demand notices at Annexures-Q, Q1 and Q2 dated 26.12.2024 demanding the difference of the price fixed by the Government and the price fixed by the Commission. 3. On the preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, Sri. P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that despite alternative remedy provided under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, 'the Act of 2003'), the writ petition is maintainable, as the State has violated the right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is his contention that though the petitioner is an electricity generating unit, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1139 WP No. 355 of 2025 Commission has directed payment of Rs.4.75/- per unit as against Rs.7.25/- per unit as agreed to be paid by the State in favour of the JSW which is also a power generating unit. Thus, he would contend that the right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is violated and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition notwithstanding the alternate remedy. 4. Sri. S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6 contend that the contention relating to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitioner. It is his contention that the JSW which is thermal based electricity generating unit has imported coal and has incurred higher cost for generating the electricity, as such, in view of the settlement arrived, the State agreed to pay Rs.7.25/- per unit of electricity and the petitioner is molasses based electricity generating unit and does not incur the cost incurred by JSW, as such, the petitioner cannot claim parity with JSW and there is no question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. This Court has considered the contentions raised by the bar. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1139 WP No. 355 of 2025 6.
Decision
disposed of. All questions are left open. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT:SNN