Karnataka High Court upholds validity of Regulation 5.8(vii)(a) of the GNA Regulations, 2022, sets aside Single Judge’s directions permitting CTUIL to process Renewable Power Park Developer’s (RPPD) applications without prior government authorisation

In a common judgment dated 28.08.2026 in Writ Appeal (“W.A.”) No. 1961 of 2025 and seven connected appeals, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Regulation 5.8(vii)(a) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Connectivity and General Network Access to the Inter-State Transmission System) Regulations, 2022 (“GNA Regulations”), rejecting the challenge raised by M/s Rays Power Infra Limited (“RPIL”) that the provision offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

By allowing the appeals filed by Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (“CTUIL”), the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has set aside the common order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge to the extent it directed CTUIL to restore and reconsider RPIL’s connectivity applications and to reserve transmission capacity in RPIL’s favour at the Tumkur-II and Bellary sub-stations, notwithstanding the absence of the government authorisation mandated under Regulation 5.8(vii)(a).

Brief Background

The concept of a Power Park Developer authorised to seek connectivity to the Inter-State Transmission System (“ISTS”) on behalf of multiple generating stations was introduced by the Fifth Amendment to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Grant of Connectivity, Long-term Access and Medium-term Open Access in inter-State Transmission and related matters) Regulations, 2009, notified on 15.05.2015, confined initially to a Solar Power Park Developer authorised by the Central Government. By the Seventh Amendment notified on 09.01.2019, the expression was widened to ‘Renewable Power Park Developer’ (“RPPD”) and the power to grant authorisation was extended to the State Governments as well. The GNA Regulations, which replaced the 2009 Regulations with effect from 07.06.2022, retained the requirement of governmental authorisation, presently contained in Regulation 5.8(vii)(a), as amended in 2023 and 2024.

RPIL, claiming to be an RPPD, proposed to establish renewable energy parks in Karnataka with connectivity to the ISTS at the Tumkur-II and Bellary pooling sub-stations. When the State Government and Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Limited (“KREDL”) did not act on its request for authorisation, RPIL instituted W.P. No. 21533/2024 and thereafter applied to CTUIL for connectivity without furnishing the authorisation. Treating the absence of authorisation as a “major deficiency” under the amended Regulation 3.5 of the GNA Regulations, CTUIL closed the applications by orders dated 30.08.2024, 02.09.2024 and 09.09.2024. RPIL and its SPVs also instituted Writ Petition (“W.P.”) No. 35002/2024 seeking a time-bound direction to the State Government to grant the authorisation, in the course of which interim orders were passed reserving 890 MW at Tumkur-II and 600 MW at Bellary for the petitioners.

By the common order dated 09.09.2025, the Learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petitions. Relying on Reliance Energy Limited v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 1, the Learned Single Judge held that RPIL had been denied a level playing field since the GNA Regulations prescribed no timeline for grant of authorisation, extended the interim reservation of capacity and consequently set aside CTUIL’s orders dated 30.08.2024, 02.09.2024, 09.09.2024 and directed CERC and CTUIL to reconsider RPIL’s applications and grant in-principle approval, subject to RPIL eventually obtaining the authorisation. The Learned Single Judge, however, did not specifically strike down or read down Regulation 5.8(vii)(a).

Aggrieved by this common order, CTUIL preferred Writ Appeal contending that the Single Judge could not have issued directions inconsistent with a Regulation whose validity had been left undisturbed.

1. RPPD and Renewable Generators are not similarly placed, no violation of Article 14

Examining the challenge on the touchstone of the settled principles governing judicial review of subordinate legislation, as laid down in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641, State of A.P. v. McDowell and Company, (1996) 3 SCC 709, and Shayara Bano v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4609, the Appellate Court held that subordinate legislation can be invalidated only where it is ultra vires the parent statute, unconstitutional, in excess of the delegated power, or manifestly arbitrary, and that a regulation cannot be struck down merely because the Court considers it unwise or capable of improvement.

Applying this test, the Division Bench held that the distinction drawn between an RPPD and a renewable energy developer is “neither artificial nor illusory”, since an RPPD develops common infrastructure, acquires land, and provides pooling arrangements to facilitate several generating stations within an integrated park, thereby occupying a distinct position in the regulatory framework. The Division Bench held that the requirement of prior government authorisation ensures that only projects recognised by the Appropriate Government are treated as renewable power parks for the purpose of seeking connectivity on behalf of multiple generating stations, a classification resting on an intelligible differentia bearing a rational nexus with the object of orderly development of the transmission network and avoidance of speculative blocking of transmission capacity. The continuity of requirement since 2015, through successive amendments was also held to demonstrate that it forms part of a considered legislative policy rather than an arbitrary stipulation.

2. Learned Single Judge could not direct CTUIL to act contrary to a Regulation whose validity was left undisturbed

The Division Bench held that once Regulation 5.8(vii)(a) was found to be constitutionally valid, its implementation necessarily followed and CTUIL, being the statutory/nodalimplementing authority under Section 38 of the Electricity Act, 2003, with no independent power to waive, relax or ignore a mandatory regulatory requirement could not have been directed to restore and process RPIL’s applications in the absence of the authorisation. The Division Bench observed that although the Single Judge had “consciously declined to strike down or read down” the Regulation, the consequential directions issued nevertheless had the effect of compelling CTUIL to act contrary to it and that such directions, “though equitable in appearance, have the effect of rendering statutory requirements otiose”.

The Division Bench also rejected the contention that CERC ought to have exercised its powers of relaxation and removal of difficulty under Regulations 41 and 42 of the GNA Regulations in RPIL’s favour, noting that RPIL’s representation seeking relaxation had in fact been considered and rejected by CERC by order dated 11.04.2025, and that such enabling powers, vested in the regulator, cannot be exercised by a Court in substitution of the Regulator.

The judgment reaffirms that the requirement of prior government authorisation for a RPPD under Regulation 5.8(vii)(a) of the GNA Regulations rests on a valid and rational classification distinguishing such developers from ordinary renewable energy generators and that courts exercising judicial review cannot, without disturbing the validity of a subordinate regulation, issue directions that have the practical effect of dispensing with its mandatory requirements, while nevertheless flagging the need for the appropriate government to put in place a transparent and time-bound procedure for grant of such authorisation.