Karnataka High Court
Timmappa Ramappa Wasanad vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8889
WP No. 114513 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 114513 OF 2019 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. TIMMAPPA RAMAPPA WASANAD,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: H. NO.18, WARD NO.5,
SAI NAGAR, MUDHOL,
BAGALKOT-587313.
2. SMT. SARASWATI W/O. RAMESH TUNGOL
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: STAFF QUARTERS, TUNGOL INDEPENDENT
PU SCIENCE COLLEGE, NEAR DABFAMANDIR,
ITTANGIHAL, TQ & DIST: VIJAYPUR-586104.
3. PRAVEEN S/O. RAMESH TUNGOL,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: STAFF QUARTERS, TUNGOL INDEPENDENT
PU SCIENCE COLLEGE, NEAR DABFAMANDIR,
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA ITTANGIHAL, TQ & DIST: VIJAYPUR-586104.
MALAGALADINNI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
BENCH (BY SRI. SURAJ M. KOTAGI, ADV. FOR SRI. V.G. BHAT, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8889
WP No. 114513 of 2019
R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN MAHALAXMI CHAMBER,
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY,
(WHOLLY OWNED GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
UNDERTAKING)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE, NAVANAGAR,
P.B. ROAD, HUBBALLI-580025.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT.)
O & M DIVISION HESCOM,
BAGALKOT-587103.
5. ASSISTANCE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT.)
O & M DIVISION HESCOM, BILAGI-587116.
6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECT.)
TR, (W & M) CIRCLE, KPTCL,
BAGALKOT-587103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SHIVARAJ MUDHOL, ADV. FOR R3-R5;
SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADV. FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI MAY KINDLY BE ORDERED BY QUASHING THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE BEARING NO. BGK/KANIEM(V)/SAKANIEM(KA)/THSA-
3/16-17/5019-24 DATED 08/07/2016, BEARING
NO.BGK/KANIEM(V)/SAKANIEM(KA)/THSA-3/2016-17/5025-30 DATED
08/07/2016, BARING NO. BGK/KANIEM(V)/SAKANIEM(KA)/THSA-
3/2016-17/5031-36 DATED 08/07/2016,
MU/KANIEM(V)/SAKANIEM(V)/SAEM(TA)/2016-17/1839-1842 DATED
11/07/2016 AND MU/KANIEM(V)/SAKANEIM(V)/SAEM(TA)/2016-
17/1843-1846 DATED 11/7/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, E1 TO E4.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8889
WP No. 114513 of 2019
ORDER
1. The petitioners are challenging the order dated
08.07.2016 issued by respondents Nos. 3 to 5, which
canceled the power purchase agreement due to the
petitioners' failure to commence the installation of a 499
KWP solar RTPV system.
2. Facts leading to the Case:
The petitioners, who own agricultural lands, submitted
applications seeking Grid Connectivity Solar Roof Top PV
Generation systems on a Net Metering Basis. Upon
receiving the applications, respondent No. 4, the Executive
Engineer, approved the installation of the KWP Solar RTPV
system. The petitioners were notified to complete the
installation within six months. Respondent No. 4 entered
into a power purchase agreement with the petitioners by
executing separate agreements on 21.03.2016. However,
on 08.07.2016, respondent No. 4 canceled the agreements,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8889
stating that the petitioners had failed to commence the
installation of the solar system.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited a
judgment from this Court in W.P.No.202895/2019, arguing
that the challenged order contravenes clause No.9.2 of the
power purchase agreement. He contended that the
respondents could not unilaterally terminate the agreement
without issuing a prior notice of 60 days, indicating a
breach by the landowners. He relied on the aforementioned
judgment to support his argument.
4. In contrast, the learned counsel for respondents
Nos. 3 to 5 and the learned HCGP argued that the
petitioners failed to install the Solar RTPV system within six
months. They pointed out that the HESCOM officials
canceled the agreement on 08.07.2016, and the petitions
were not filed until 2019. They argued that the petition
should be dismissed due to delay and laches.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8889
5. The petition was filed in 2019, challenging the
cancellation of the power purchase agreement dated
08.07.2016. No copies were served to respondents Nos. 2
to 6, and the matter was not moved for necessary orders
for almost five years due to office objections.
6. Considering these significant details, this Court
finds that this case does not warrant any indulgence. The
judgment cited by the petitioners' counsel does not apply to
the present case. Due to the delay and laches, the
petitioners are not entitled to any relief from this Court.
7. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Svh/-
