SOHAM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER v. THE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY

Electricity Act, 2003. It is contended that the Commission is statutorily obligated to promote competition, efficiency, economical use of resources and generation of electricity from renewable energy sources. By imposing an excessive surcharge burden upon consumers procuring renewable energy through Open Access, the Commission is alleged to have acted contrary to the legislative policy of encouraging renewable energy generation and market competition. - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:30112 WP No. 15316 of 2025 HC-KAR

11. The petitioners would also contend that Rule 13 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 does not permit imposition of surcharge beyond limits contemplated therein. According to the petitioners, the proviso to Regulation 12(c), prescribing a cap linked to 20% of the applicable tariff, has been erroneously construed by the Commission as authorizing levy of surcharge up to the maximum permissible level. It is submitted that the said provision is inconsistent with Rule 13 and therefore liable to be struck down.

12. The petitioners would further contend that the impugned regulations are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that consumers procuring electricity through Open Access and consumers procuring electricity from ESCOMs belong to the same consumer category and therefore cannot be subjected to differential treatment without a rational basis. The petitioners would submit that levy of surcharge four times - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:30112 WP No. 15316 of 2025 HC-KAR higher than the subsidy burden borne by ESCOM consumers constitutes hostile discrimination.

13. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (supra), Vikram Cement v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemical Corporation Ltd.3, A.P. Krishnaswami Naidu v. State of Madras4, Lakshman v. State of Madhya Pradesh5 and Union of India v. N.S. Ratnam and Sons6, apart from the decision of this Court in Renew Wind Energy (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India7.

14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-Commission would support the impugned regulations and tariff order. It is contended that Section 42(2) of the Electricity Act itself recognizes the concept of ORDER (i) The writ petitions are dismissed; - 45 - NC: 2026:KHC:30112 WP No. 15316 of 2025 HC-KAR (ii) Regulation 12(c) and the proviso thereto contained in the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2025 are held to be intra vires the Electricity Act, 2003, the Electricity Rules, 2005 and the National Tariff Policy; (iii) The challenge to the consequential tariff determining Cross-Subsidy Surcharge is rejected; (iv) All pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of; (v) No order as to costs. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA CT:BCK LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 1