Dismissed

Mrs.M.B.Vijayalakshmi v. Stateof Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2024WP/48071/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petitioner filed a petition seeking directions to consider representations regarding a Power Purchase Agreement tariff, which was subsequently withdrawn by the Petitioner with liberty to approach the KERC, leading to the dismissal of the petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the tariff before the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission. Benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act granted.

Mrs.M.B.Vijayalakshmi Vs Stateof Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44751 WP No. 48071 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 48071 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS.M.B.VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O LATE MR. MR BALADEV, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.714/C, 10TH CROSS, M.C. LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SUNIL PP.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATEOF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKASOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶14

THE KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY DEPARTMENT LTD., NO.39, "SHANTHIGRUHA", BHARATH SCOUTS & GUIDES BUILDING, OPP THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL OFFICE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY THIS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:44751 WP No. 48071 of 2017

¶18

SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.29, VIJAYANAGARA, 2ND STAGE, HINKAL, MYSORE-570017.

¶19

RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE., AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. S, SREERABGA., FOR R4; SRI. SAMARTH KASHYAP., FOR R3 ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE R- 1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS AT ANNEXUREZ3 AND Z5 OF THE PETITIONER, WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD THAT MAY BE FIXED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT, OR WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THIS PETITION AND ETC,.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶26

following reliefs:

¶27

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner prays that, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

¶28

i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the First and Second Respondents to consider the Representations at Annexures Z-3 & Z-5, of the Petitioner, within a reasonable period that may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court, or within 15 days from the date of the order of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44751 WP No. 48071 of 2017

¶30

ii) Or in the alternative, issue appropriate writ order or direction to the Fourth Respondent to execute the Power Purchase Agreement in favour of the Petitioner at the rate prevailed as on the date of the Allotment Letter issued by the Third Respondent in pursuance of the Letter dated 10.03.2017 at Annexure-T, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

iii) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the award of costs, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶32

A memo dated 20.09.2024 has been filed and signed by

¶33

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner which reads as

¶34

under:

¶35

“The petitioner had filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus, being aggrieved by the inaction of Respondents No.1 and 2 in considering the representations produced as Annexures-Z3 and Z5. Subsequent to the filing of this petition, the Respondents have considered the Petitioner’s representations. However, the Petitioner is dissatisfied with the tariff granted by the Respondents under the PPA and the Supplementary PPA. Therefore, the Petitioner wishes to pursue the matter before the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) to seek appropriate relief.

¶36

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court pleased to permit the withdrawal of the above petition, with liberty to approach the KERC to agitate her grievance, in the interests of justice and equity.”

¶37

Accepting the said memo and the submissions of the

¶38

learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is dismissed as having been infructuous, liberty is granted to the petitioner to

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:44751 WP No. 48071 of 2017

¶41

challenge the tariff before the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory

¶42

Commission. The petitioner shall have the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶43

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶44

PNV

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Mrs.M.B.Vijayalakshmi v. Stateof Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.M.B.Vijayalakshmi v. Stateof Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Krishnan Nayar Veliyath Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Nikhil v. Jadhav Vs H.K. Chanchala Devi

Sri. Narendra Kumar S B Vs the Additional Registrar of Co. Operative Societes (R 441)

Umesh Gurjar Vs Punjab National Bank

Smt. Puttacheluvamma Vs Magma Housing Finance

Surya Corporation Vs Yashas Nayak