Karnataka renewable-energy policy ruling applied to three developers; fee-refund requests must be decided within two weeks

The petitioners, renewable-energy project developers, challenged Clauses 6.1(b), 6.1(c), 6.2 and 7.2 of the Karnataka Renewable Energy Policy 2022–27, including its amendment dated 27 February 2023.

They sought, among other reliefs, to quash the clauses insofar as applicable to their projects and to obtain refunds of application and processing fees paid under Clause 7.2(b).

At the hearing, counsel jointly submitted that the Karnataka High Court’s decision in M/s JSP Green Wind 1 Private Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Another, dated 28 August 2026, governed the petitions.

1. Whether the challenges to the Policy clauses were governed by the decision in M/s JSP Green Wind 1 Private Ltd.

2. Whether the petitioners’ requests for refund of application and processing fees should be decided by Respondent No. 2, and within what time.

The Court applied the coordinate Bench’s ruling in M/s JSP Green Wind 1 Private Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Another (order dated 28 August 2026), which held that the requirement of a Government order to begin execution of work under Clause 6.1 was sustainable; the land-use restriction in Clause 6.2 was arbitrary where the developer had itself acquired or leased the land, but remained applicable where the Government acquired and handed over the land; and the fee or charges under Clause 7.2 were to be read down in light of the observations in that order.

The petitions also invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the Electricity Act, 2003, but the Court disposed of the challenges by applying the coordinate Bench’s ruling rather than separately determining those grounds.

The Court noted that the parties agreed the coordinate Bench’s decision applied and concluded that the reliefs sought were covered by it.

It therefore disposed of the petitions on the same terms, incorporating the precedent’s treatment of the Policy clauses.

As to the fees, the Court directed Respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioners’ refund requests and communicate its decision; it did not itself order a refund.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to consider the petitioners’ refund requests and intimate its decision as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.