Karnataka High Court directs national tribunals to implement e-services within six months

The Karnataka High Court recently directed all national tribunals to implement e-filing, e-appearance and other electronic or digital services within six months. [Solvis Energie India vs State of Karnataka and Ors.].Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the directive after being informed that the litigant before the Court 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 rose. ."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 Court ordered..The Court was hearing a writ petition by Solvis Energie India against an order of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC). The petitioner had applied for the establishment of a 2 MW solar power generation plant after the government of Karnataka issued a notice inviting tenders for participation in the generation of solar power through Karnataka Renewable Energy Limited (KREDL). After the power purchase agreement (PPA) was executed, the government revised the tariff rate from ₹8.40 per unit to ₹6.51 per unit, owing to some roadblocks to the establishment of the plant in a particular location. The tariff was eventually revised again to ₹4.36 per unit via a supplementary power purchase agreement. Disputes arose thereafter over when the commissioning of electricity began. On the one hand, the petitioner contended that commissioning would begin when the commission certificate is issued by the authorities. On the other hand, the government claimed that the commissioning would be commence only on there being a flow of electricity, and not when the commission certificate is issued.Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the KERC. However, its claim was rejected. Hence, it approached the High Court..The Court eventually allowed the petition, ruling that the commissioning began when the commission certificate was issued..One of the contentions of the respondent-authorities was that the Court could not take up the matter given that there was an alternate remedy available before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL)..The petitioners countered that although such an alternate remedy was available, it was not efficacious as the petitioner would have to go to Delhi, engage a lawyer and conduct the matter there, which would be very expensive. The Court was also informed that the cause of action arose during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that, unfortunately, the tribunal was neither working then nor did it offer an e-filing facility..Taking into consideration that the plea was filed during the pandemic, the Court opined that it could not relegate the petitioner to an alternate remedy based on technicalities.After allowing the petition, the Court proceeded to also direct all national tribunals to implement e-filing, e-appearance and other e-services within six months from the receipt of the order. .[Read Order]