Jahanvi Agarwal
Karnataka High Court recently ordered the implementation of e-filing, e-appearance, and other electronic or digital services within six months in all national tribunals.
The bench consisted of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, who issued the said order after he was informed by a litigant that he could not pursue an alternative remedy before an appellate tribunal as the tribunal was neither working nor offering e-filing facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic when the cause of action arose.
The Court observed that:
“It would be required that e-filing, e-appearance, and other e-services are made available by all national tribunals at the earliest at any rate within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. The Additional Government Advocate is directed to bring the above order to the notice of the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India.”
The said order was passed by the Court, while it was hearing a writ petition by Solvis Energie India against an order of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC).
After the Karnataka government issued a notice inviting bids for contributions to the generation of solar electricity through Karnataka Renewable Energy Limited (KREDL), the petitioner in the present case submitted an application for the construction of a 2 MW solar power generation plant.
Due to various challenges in the establishment of the plant in a specific location, the government reduced the tariff rate from Rs. 8.40 per unit to Rs. 6.51 per unit after the power purchase agreement (PPA) was executed. A subsequent power purchase agreement was executed, wherein the rates were revived and changed to Rs. 4.36 per unit.
Following it, arguments regarding the commissioning of electricity emerged. The petitioner argued that the commissioning would start as soon as the authorities provided them with the commission certificate.
On the other side, the government claimed that the commissioning would begin whenever energy started circulating, not when the commission certificate was issued.
The petitioner approached the KERC. However, his plea was rejected. As a result, the aggrieved petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court.
Ultimately, the Court allowed the petition and ordered that the commissioning would start the moment when the commission certificate was issued. The respondent argued that the Court cannot allow the petition as an alternative remedy is still available before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL).
Although such an alternative remedy was available, the petitioners knowingly stated that it was efficacious as the petitioner would have to go to Delhi, engage a lawyer, and conduct the matter there, which would be very expensive.
Not only this but the Court was also further informed that the COVID-19 epidemic was the cause of the action. Unfortunately, the tribunal was neither working then nor providing the option of e-filing.
The Court subsequently ordered all national tribunals to implement e-filing, e-appearance, and other e-services within six months after allowing the petition.
Case Name: Solvis Energie India V. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Diary Number: 10634/2021
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj