T Sharanappa Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

T Sharanappa Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking a mandamus to enforce the APTEL order dated 20.03.2024 (revival of the PPA dated 17.12.2015 and synchronization/commissioning of the petitioner's SRTPV system) is maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution while that APTEL judgment is under challenge in a pending Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Enforcement of terms of the PPA, implementation of the APTEL direction affecting tariff and contractual liabilities, and execution of an appellate order are matters not amenable to writ jurisdiction; such matters are inherently contractual.

Ratio / Principle

Since the APTEL judgment the petitioner seeks to enforce is the subject matter of a pending Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, entertaining the writ petition and issuing directions for its execution would interfere with the appellate jurisdiction and render the pending appeal nugatory.

Key takeaways

Execution proceedings under the guise of a writ petition are impermissible, especially when the appellate decree is under challenge before a superior forum.ratio¶46
The writ petition is not maintainable; no grounds are made for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and the petitioner, having approached the Court by way of an execution petition under the guise of a writ petition, is not entitled to the reliefs sought.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-KEB) under Articles 226 and 227 — maintainability — petitioner sought mandamus to enforce the APTEL order dated 20.03.2024 in Smt. A. Jayamma v. State of Karnataka (Appeal No.137/2022), whereby the termination of the PPA dated 17.12.2015 was set aside, the original PPA revived, and synchronization/commissioning of the SRTPV plant directed, together with execution of an SPPA at Rs.9.56 per unit w.e.f. 18.01.2018 — the APTEL judgment is under challenge in a pending Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court — Held: enforcement of PPA terms, implementation of the APTEL tariff/contractual direction and execution of an appellate order are inherently contractual and not amenable to writ jurisdiction; entertaining such a petition would interfere with appellate jurisdiction and render the pending appeal nugatory; execution proceedings under the guise of a writ petition are impermissible when the appellate decree is under challenge before a superior forum; no grounds made out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 — writ petition dismissed; all rights and contentions kept open to be urged before the appropriate forum.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 32468 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

T SHARANAPPA S/O THIPPESWAMY, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT MOGALAHALLI VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 535.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. POONAM S. PATIL., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE- 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), C.O AND M DIVISION, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA - 577 598.

THE GENERAL MANAGER (DSM)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025

HC-KAR

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE- 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.SRIRANGA, SR.COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.06.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND A1 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER REQUESTING TO EXECUTE THE SUPPLEMENTARY POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT (SPPA) AT THE TARIFF OF RS.9.56 PER UNIT W.E.F. DATE OF COMMISSIONING I.E., FROM 18.01.2018 IN RESPECT OF THE SOLAR ROOF TOP PHOTO VOLTAIC (SRTPV) PLANT SITUATED AT MOGALAHALLI VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2024 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (APTEL) VIDE ANNEXURE Q AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act upon the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (For short 'APTEL') in the case of SMT. A.JAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS¹

(SMT. A.JAYAMMA), whereby the Tribunal set aside the termination of Power Purchase Agreement (for short 'PPA') dated 17.12.2015 and directed the SRTPV system of the petitioner shall be synchronized/commissioned in accordance with the said PPA, without insisting upon execution of a fresh agreement. The petitioner seeks enforcement of the said directions by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

The petitioner has entered into PPA on 17.12.2015 with the respondent-BESCOM for establishing a Solar Roof Top Photo Voltaic (for short 'SRTPV') system

1 Appeal No.137/2022 and connected matters. dated 20.03.2024

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025

HC-KAR

under the generic tariff order dated 10.10.2013. The PPA was subsequently cancelled by the respondent-BESCOM citing violations, resulting in the petitioner executing fresh PPA at a reduced rate. Challenging the legality of cancellation and reduced tariff, the petitioner approached the APTEL, which by a common judgment in SMT. A.JAYAMMA's case ( supra ), the APTEL allowed the appeal, revived the original PPA and held that synchronization and commissioning must be carried out strictly in the PPA dated 17.12.2015. The respondentBESCOM has challenged the APTEL judgment before the Apex Court and is pending in Civil Appeal. Pending adjudication before the Apex Court, the petitioner is now seeking for execution of the APTEL's direction.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the APTEL has unequivocally restored the PPA dated 17.12.2015 and held that the BESCOM cannot insist upon execution of a fresh agreement. Learned counsel submits that in the absence of any interim stay of the APTEL

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025

HC-KAR

judgment in the petitioner's matter, the respondents are legally bound to implement the same and that despite repeated representations, the respondents have not synchronized and commissioned the petitioner's SRTPV unit as directed by the APTEL and accordingly, submits that a mandamus for enforcement of the APTEL order is needed to be ordered in this petition.

Per contra, Sri.Sreeranga, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and execution of an order of the APTEL or enforcement of PPA must be pursued

before the appropriate regulatory forum or by seeking relief in a pending Civil Appeal and not before this Court. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the APTEL’s judgment has already been challenged in Civil Appeal before the Apex Court. Any order implementing the APTEL decision will defeat the rights of the BESCOM and render the Civil Appeal infructuous. Learned Senior counsel also submits that the petitioner seeks enforcement of a

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025

HC-KAR

contractual obligation under PPA/SPPA, which cannot be granted in the writ petition.

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

The relief sought pertains to enforcement of terms of PPA and implementation of direction of the APTEL affecting tariff and contractual liabilities. Such matters are inherently contractual and not amenable to jurisdiction. The APTEL's judgment, which the petitioner seeks to enforce is subject matter in a pending Civil Appeal before the Apex Court. Entertaining the writ petition at this stage and issuing direction for its execution would interfere with the appellate jurisdiction and the same would render the pending appeal nugatory. What is essentially sought is the execution of an appellate order. Execution proceedings under the guise of writ petition are impermissible, especially when the appellate decree is under challenge before a superior Forum.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:51126 WP No. 32468 of 2025

HC-KAR

In light of the above discussion, this Court is of

the considered view that the writ petition is not maintainable and no grounds are made for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner having approached this Court by way of an execution petition under the guise of a writ petition is not entitled to the reliefs sought.

Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition stands dismissed .

ii) All the rights and contentions are kept open

to be urged before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

Sd/-

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

PHM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7