Kerala High Court
Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers … vs Kerala State Electricity Regulatory … on 28 July, 2025
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:1:-
2025:KER:55670
"C.R."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(PIL) NO. 79 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DOMESTIC ON-GRID SOLAR POWER PROSUMERS
FORUM - KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT - M. ABDUL SATHAR,
TC 43/40, KUTTIVILAKAM HOUSE, MANACADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009.
BY ADVS. SRI. YESHWANTH SHENOY,
SMT. AYSHA ABRAHAM.
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHAIRMAN, KPFC BHAVANAM,
C.V. RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010.
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010.
3 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014.
[ADDL.R2 & R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 28/07/2025 IN
WP(PIL) NO.79/2025].
R1 BY ADV. NANDAGOPAL S. KURUP, STANDING COUNSEL,
R2 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. TEKCHAND
THIS WRIT PETITION (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:2:-
2025:KER:55670
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2025.
Nitin Jamdar, C. J.
The subject matter of this Public Interest Litigation is the decision
of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission to conduct only an
online public hearing, and not a physical hearing, in connection with the
draft regulations pertaining to renewable energy.
2. The Petitioner – Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum
is a registered association formed with the object of ensuring the welfare
and protection of the rights of all solar energy users in Kerala, particularly
domestic on-grid solar power prosumers. The Respondent – Kerala State
Electricity Regulatory Commission, is a statutory body constituted under
Section 82 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. The State Police Chief and Director General of Police, Police
Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram; and the City Police Commissioner,
Office of the City Police Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, are
impleaded as additional respondents.
4. The Electricity Act, 2003 (Act of 2003), under which the
Respondent – Commission is constituted, is enacted to consolidate the
laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading, and use of
electricity, and generally for taking measures conducive to the
development of the electricity industry, protecting the interest of
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:3:-
2025:KER:55670
consumers and the supply of electricity to all areas, promoting efficient
and environmentally benign policies, and establishing Regulatory
Commissions, such as the Respondent. Part II of the Act of 2003 deals
with the National Electricity Policy and Plan. Parts III to VI address the
modalities, including generation, licensing, transmission, and distribution
of electricity. In Part VII of the Act of 2003, tariffs are regulated under
Section 61. Under Section 62, the procedure for tariff order is specified,
and Section 66 deals with the development of the market, where the
Appropriate Commission is enjoined to promote the development of a
market in the manner specified in the National Electricity Policy. Part
VIII deals with the works of licensees. Part IX deals with the constitution
and functions of the Central Electricity Authority. Part X deals with the
constitution, powers, and functions of the Regulatory Commissions.
5. Under Section 82 of Part X of the Act of 2003, the State
Government is empowered to constitute a State Commission, known as
the “State Electricity Regulatory Commission”, to discharge various
functions as outlined in the scheme of Section 86. As per clause (a) of
Section 86(1), the State Commission shall determine the tariff for
generation, supply, transmission, and wheeling of electricity, whether
wholesale, bulk, or retail. The State Commission, under clause (b) of
Section 86(1), is empowered to regulate the electricity purchase and
procurement process of distribution licensees and electricity traders, and
under clause (e) of Section 86(1), the State Commission promotes
cogeneration and generation of electricity from renewable sources of
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:4:-
2025:KER:55670
energy by providing suitable measures for connectivity with the grid.
Section 181 empowers the State Commissions to make regulations. Such
regulations can be made in particular and without prejudice to the
generality of the powers specified therein, including any other matter
which is to be, or may be, specified under clause (zp). As per sub-section
(3) of Section 181, all regulations made by the State Commission under
the Act of 2003 shall be subject to the condition of previous publication.
6. On the aspect of previous publication referred to under Section
181(3), the Ministry of Power, Government of India, in exercise of the
powers conferred under sub-section (1) and clause (z) of sub-section (2)
of Section 176 of the Act of 2003, has framed the Electricity (Procedure
for Previous Publication) Rules, 2005 (Rules of 2005). The procedure for
previous publication is laid down in Rule 3 of the Rules of 2005, under
which a draft of the regulations is to be published and any objections or
suggestions are to be considered before finalising the draft regulations.
7. On 30 May 2025, as per Rule 3 of the Rules of 2005, the
Respondent – Commission issued a notice publishing a draft of the
proposed regulations – Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Renewable Energy and Related Matters) Regulations, 2025 (Draft
Regulations of 2025) for the information of the stakeholders and the
persons likely to be affected thereby. It is stated in the notice that any
objections or suggestions thereon may be forwarded to the Secretary. The
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:5:-
2025:KER:55670
notice also stated that a public hearing on the same will be conducted and
that its date and venue shall be intimated separately.
8. Thereafter, a press note came to be issued on 19 June 2025
(incorrectly mentioned as 19 June 2022), regarding the public hearing on
the Draft Regulations of 2025, scheduled to be held from 8 to 11 July
2025. It referred to the publication of the draft regulations on the website
on 30 May 2025, and stated that the Commission had received a
substantial number of representations, with a prominent concern raised
by the stakeholders pertaining to the continuation of net metering for
existing prosumers. Certain clarifications were provided in the press note,
and the Commission scheduled an online public hearing to be conducted
over four dates: 8, 9, 10, and 11 July 2025. This was stated to facilitate
wider participation across the State. The note also stated that interested
individuals and entities intending to participate in the virtual hearing
were called upon to register themselves on the website.
9. The Petitioner – Forum filed this petition on 8 July 2025, praying
that the Respondent – Commission be directed to conduct the public
hearing in hybrid mode, both physical and virtual, and that physical
hearings should be held at multiple centres across Kerala, as was done by
the Commission in the past.
10. We have heard Mr. Yeshwanth Shenoy, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Mr. Nandagopal S. Kurup, learned standing counsel for the
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:6:-
2025:KER:55670
Respondent – Commission, and Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior
Government Pleader for the additional Respondents.
11. The Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Renewable
Energy and Net Metering) Regulations, 2020 (Regulations of 2020),
dated 7 February 2020, were published on 5 June 2020. The proposed
Draft Regulations of 2025 are to be applicable to all existing and new
grid-interactive renewable energy systems; consumers and prosumers;
captive consumers and captive generating plants; generating companies
and distribution licensees; and other entities. These Draft Regulations
will govern various aspects of renewable energy systems, such as tariff,
storage plants, purchase obligation and its compliance; metering and
billing, technical feasibility, registration, connectivity, metering, energy
accounting and billing of prosumers, storage, banking and open access,
inter-licensee transfer of renewable energy, etc. The Draft Regulations
propose that the existing prosumers billed under net metering in the State
as on the date of coming into effect of these regulations shall be under the
net metering system as specified in these regulations until the occurrence
of the conditions specified therein, including enhancement of capacity of
the existing plants, expiry of the useful life of the existing plant, etc.
12. It is the case of the Petitioner that electricity generation in Kerala
has traditionally been based on hydroelectric power; however, due to
various factors, hydroelectric generation has declined and is insufficient to
meet the power requirements of the State, because of which solar energy
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:7:-
2025:KER:55670
has emerged as the primary alternative. It is stated that Kerala has become
predominantly dependent on rooftop solar energy systems installed by
domestic consumers, commercial establishments, and industries, and that
a substantial percentage of the country’s solar capacity, comprising
rooftop installations, is located in Kerala. According to the Petitioner,
through net metering arrangements there has been substantial growth,
which has allowed prosumers to offset their electricity consumption with
solar generation and receive credits for surplus energy fed into the grid.
The Petitioner – Forum has stated that the draft regulations now
proposed will bring significant changes to the existing net metering
framework and will significantly affect the continued use of solar energy
in the State. It is also stated that the Evaluation Committee for the
preparation of the Discussion Paper on the Draft Regulations of 2025,
constituted by the Commission, did not have any representation from
prosumer organisations, consumer associations, environmental groups, or
representatives of the solar industry. Therefore, it is stated that there are
several lacunae in the draft regulations, and that in order to sustain the
achievement of the State being a front-runner in solar energy, it is
necessary that the regulations are carefully drafted and implemented, if at
all, and that without inputs from various quarters, the regulatory exercise
would not be complete. The Petitioner contends that, therefore, a public
hearing is of utmost necessity in this case and cannot possibly be
dispensed with. As regards the mode of public hearing, the Petitioner
submitted that the Respondent – Commission has consistently conducted
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:8:-
2025:KER:55670
public hearings, either through the physical mode or hybrid mode, in
various locations, such as District Centres in Thiruvananthapuram,
Ernakulam, Kozhikode, and Kannur, where thousands of stakeholders
have physically participated in the consultation process. It is stated that,
for the first time, the Commission has decided to conduct a public
hearing for these crucial regulations solely online, and the Forum alleges
that this is a deliberate attempt to discourage stakeholder participation
and limit meaningful consultation. The Petitioner contends that the fact
that several persons have registered for the online hearing demonstrates
the widespread interest among the prosumer community to put forth
their points. The Petitioner emphasises the importance of public hearings
and states that they should not be made a formality or treated as an
impediment by the Commission. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks a
direction to conduct the public hearing on the draft regulations in
physical mode.
13. When the petition came up on board, on 15 July 2025, the learned
standing counsel for the Respondent – Commission submitted that there
is no legal mandate for public hearings per se, and that when physical
public hearing was conducted in the past, there were law and order issues.
At that time, on the aspect of the law and order issue, the learned
standing counsel for the Commission submitted that he would place a
note on how to prevent the perceived disruptions. Accordingly, a memo
and a statement have been filed. The stand taken by the Commission in
the statement and argued before us is that the Petitioner and stakeholders
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:9:-
2025:KER:55670
have no legal right to demand a physical hearing, and reference is made to
the physical hearing conducted in the Commission’s Court Hall at
Thiruvananthapuram in the year 2024. It is stated that on this occasion,
several individuals entered the hall and disrupted the proceedings of the
Commission, as a result of which many stakeholders were unable to
provide their comments and suggestions. Therefore, the Commission has
now decided to conduct the hearing exclusively online. It is stated that
since the Petitioner – Forum has already submitted written comments, it
is not necessary to hold a public hearing. It is also stated that the online
hearing will have a wider reach, which will be convenient for participants
and will also address health and other relevant considerations.
Additionally, the sessions will be live-streamed to ensure complete
transparency.
14. We have considered the rival contentions.
15. Under Section 181(3) of the Act of 2003, all the regulations made
by the State Commission under the Act shall be subject to the condition
of previous publication. As referred to earlier, the procedure of the
previous publication is dealt with under the Rules of 2005. In this
context, Rule 3 reads as follows:
“3. Procedure of Previous Publication – For the
purpose of previous publication of regulations under
sub-section (3) of section 177, sub-section (3) of section
178 and the sub-section (3) of section 181 of the Act, the
following procedure shall apply:
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:10:-
2025:KER:55670
(1) the Authority or the Appropriate Commission shall,
before making regulations, publish a draft of the
regulations for the information of persons likely to be
affected thereby;
(2) the publication shall be made in such manner as the
Authority or the Appropriate Commission deems to be
sufficient;
(3) there shall be published with the draft regulations a
notice specifying a date on or after which the draft
regulations will be taken into consideration;
(4) the Authority or the Appropriate Commission having
powers to make regulations shall consider any objection
or suggestion which may be received by the Authority or
the Appropriate Commission from any person with
respect to the draft before the date so specified.”
***
Thus, while framing the regulations, the draft has to be published in a
manner deemed fit by the Authority, and the Commission has to consider
any objections or suggestions received. Based on Rule 3(4), the
Respondent – Commission contends that it is for the Commission to
decide how the objections are to be considered, and stakeholders have no
legal right in this regard.
16. Rule 3(4) of the Rules of 2005 does not specifically state that
suggestions and objections can be received in whatever manner the
Commission deems fit. Also, there cannot be absolute discretion vested in
the Commission in this regard. Assuming these Rules confer discretion
on the Commission to decide the manner in which objections are to be
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:11:-
2025:KER:55670
received, in the past, the Commission has conducted public hearings in a
physical or hybrid mode, which has evolved into a practice adopted by
the Commission in implementing the Rules of 2005. To cite this
established practice, the Petitioner has also placed on record the notice
issued on 28 February 2024 by the Respondent – Commission in respect
of the Draft Kerala Electricity (Fifth Amendment) Code, 2024, wherein
notice was given for a public hearing through hybrid mode on the Draft
Kerala Electricity Supply (Fifth Amendment) Code, 2024. Another
instance cited by the Petitioner is the note dated 7 September 2024,
submitted to the Chief Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board, in
relation to the tariff revision by the Commission. It is stated therein that
the hearings were conducted at four locations – Kozhikode, Palakkad, and
Ernakulam, and that the final hearing was proposed to be held at
Thiruvananthapuram, at the Kerala Panchayat Association Hall. There is
no denial of the assertion made by the Petitioner.
17. The Petitioner has also placed on record the notice dated 30 May
2025 issued by the Respondent – Commission when the present draft
regulations were published. The notice reads as under:
“KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
NOTICE
No. 3228/Con.Engg/2023/KSERC Dated: 30.05.2025
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of
Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Central Act 36 of
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:12:-2025:KER:55670
2003) read with Sections 61, 62, 66 and clause (a), (b) and (e)
of sub-section (1) of Section 86 thereof, and all other powers
enabling it in this behalf, the Kerala State Electricity
Regulatory Commission hereby publishes the draft of the
proposed Regulations, namely, ‘Kerala State Electricity
Regulatory Commission (Renewable Energy and Related
Matters) Regulations, 2025’, for the information of the
stakeholders and the persons likely to be affected thereby. Any
objections or suggestions thereon may be forwarded to the
Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission,
KPFC Bhavanam, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram-10,
within one month from the date of publication of this notice.
Objections, comments and suggestions received on or before
the said date shall be considered by the Commission before
finalisation of these draft regulations. A public hearing on the
same will be conducted and its date and venue shall be
intimated separately.
Sd/-
Secretary”
*** (emphasis supplied)
This notice is issued under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2005. In this notice
itself, it was also stated that the date and venue of the public hearing
would be intimated. The phrase “venue” assumes importance, as the
Petitioner has asserted that, based on past practice, people were led to
believe that a physical hearing would be conducted at a venue, which
would be notified separately.
18. The Commission has to approach the issue of public hearings
keeping in mind the underlying concept behind it. Public hearings are an
important part of the democratic process where stakeholders are given the
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:13:-
2025:KER:55670
opportunity to participate. Public hearing is a well-established and vital
component of the regulatory process in our country. Holding public
hearings has evolved into an institutional practice across several domains,
including electricity regulation. It provides stakeholders with an
opportunity to express their perspectives and participate in the decision-
making process, and the outcome, if adverse, is more likely to be accepted
because of the opportunity for participation in the process.
19. The Commission has taken a stand that it has not discontinued
public hearings, but has chosen to discontinue physical/hybrid hearings
and is conducting only online hearings which may have wider reach. The
Petitioner does not oppose online hearing but states that physical hearing
is different and important. There is merit in the contention of the
Petitioner. Online hearing can be suitable for certain type of hearings,
such as adversarial hearings in the Court, Tribunal, etc. Public hearing to
understand the view of laypersons for a proposed regulations, is different.
It may not always possible for every person to participate in a virtual
hearing for various reasons. The existence of the digital divide across
various cultural and socioeconomic segments in the country is now well
recognised. Also not all stakeholders may be familiar or comfortable with
the online hearings. As the Commission has done in the past, the hybrid
mode of public hearing enables both those who are comfortable with
technology and those who wish to present their views in person to have
the opportunity to do so. The Petitioner also points out that attending a
public hearing involves a commitment as it requires the person to travel
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:14:-
2025:KER:55670
to the venue and spend a considerable portion of the day, and unless
one has a genuine interest in the subject, such an effort would not be
undertaken, and therefore, those who wish to attend a physical
hearing can reasonably be presumed to have a bona fide interest in giving
the suggestions.
20. The right of the stakeholders to insist on a physical public hearing
and the action of the Respondent – Commission, a public authority, to
step back from its practice of holding a physical hearing are two different
things. Assuming that the stakeholders have no such statutory right under
the Rules, the action of the Respondent – Commission in discontinuing
the practice of physical hearings can be challenged and tested under
judicial review if it is arbitrary, irrational, or disproportionate.
21. The Respondent – Commission, under the Rules of 2005, has put
in place hybrid/physical public hearing as a matter of participatory
democratic process. This is how the Commission has chosen to
implement the Rules of 2005. This mode of public hearing under the
Rules of 2005 by the Commission is now well entrenched in the State. In
this context, the principle of non-regression can be noted, which is
generally referred to in respect of environmental matters. Thus, having
modulated the Rules of 2005 to provide physical public hearing in
furtherance of strengthening the participatory democratic process, the
Commission should not roll back or dilute this process unless there are
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:15:-
2025:KER:55670
valid reasons. Validity of the reasons can be questioned by the Petitioner,
if the action is arbitrary.
22. As regards the ground of arbitrariness in the action of the
Respondent – Commission in discontinuing the physical public hearing is
concerned, it can be examined under the doctrine of proportionality.
Proportionality is a well established ground for judicial review of
administrative actions. The principle of proportionality requires that any
action taken by an authority has to be proportionate to the objective
sought to be achieved. Where the action involves prohibiting an activity,
such as a public hearing, the measure must be appropriate and necessary
in order to achieve the objective which is to be legitimately pursued. If
the action is disproportionate and defeats the larger purpose, it becomes
irrational and arbitrary. When there is a choice between several suitable
measures, recourse must be had to the one that advances, rather than
thwarts, the principles of participatory democracy. It is possible that, in a
given case, certain vested interests may attempt to disrupt the public
hearing with the intent of discontinuing the concept of public hearing in
future. If the response to such disruptions is to discontinue public
hearings altogether, it would, in effect, reward those who disrupt and
detrimental to the genuine stakeholders. Thus, a valid and proportionate
response to the situation presented before the Commission would be to
take effective action against those who attempt to disrupt the hearing by
involving the law enforcement agencies, and not to dispense with physical
hearings in future altogether, as the Commission has proposed to do.
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:16:-
2025:KER:55670
23. It could be argued that more the impact of the proposed regulations
on the general public, more emotive an angle to the hearing there could
be. But that cannot be a reason not to hold physical public hearing at all.
Ultimately, maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the State,
which it has to perform. Deployment of police at public events where
there is apprehension of a breach of peace is a routine task for the police
force, and disruptive elements are dealt with accordingly. Nothing
stopped the Commission from approaching the State Government, whose
primary duty is to maintain law and order, if it apprehended any
disorderly behaviour. The Commission could also prescribe rules
governing the conduct of public hearings and clearly stipulated the
consequences for any acts of indiscipline. The Respondent – Commission
neither contacted the law enforcement authorities, nor cited any grave
breach of public peace, nor developed any Standard Operating Procedure
(till it was called upon to do so), and instead directly chose to discontinue
the physical public hearing itself. There can always be better logistical
arrangements, effective crowd management, clear rules of conduct
notified in advance, and appropriate security measures to ensure that
public hearings are conducted in a peaceful and productive manner.
Therefore, the action of the Commission in discontinuing the physical
public hearing itself, instead of attempting to ensure discipline, is entirely
disproportionate to the situation in the present case. On this ground also,
the action taken by the Respondent – Commission is questionable in law.
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:17:-
2025:KER:55670
24. The learned standing counsel for the Respondent – Commission
then contended that if a physical hearing is to be directed, the same can
be conducted at the office premises of the Commission in
Thiruvananthapuram, and has suggested some regulatory measures by
placing a draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Some of them are as
follows. The Commission will issue an advance public notice, informing
the public of the date and time for the public hearing on its official
website. Advance registration for participating in the physical hearing will
be available through the Commission’s online portal on a first-come, first-
served basis. Physical hearing will be provided only for those stakeholders
– persons, organisations, or associations who could not participate in the
online hearings so far conducted by the Commission. Persons who have
registered to participate in the public hearing will have access to the Court
Hall only by producing their official identification cards. On failure to
provide the identity card of the participant, his/her entry to the Court
Hall will be denied, and several other such conditions. Having perused
the proposed SOP, we find that most of its clauses are reasonable.
However, some of the clauses are unduly stringent and give the
impression that the SOP is more directed at imposing restrictions than
receiving feedback. Though we leave it to the Commission to regulate the
physical hearing, the Commission will ensure that the SOP itself does not
become an impediment to or stifle free expression by the stakeholders.
25. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that physical
hearings were previously conducted at four prominent locations across
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:18:-
2025:KER:55670
the State, and now to restrict them only to one place at the premises of
the Commission in Thiruvananthapuram, which may not have sufficient
capacity, is arbitrary. The Commission has, in the past, conducted
physical public hearings at four locations across the State, including one
outside its office. The learned standing counsel for the Respondent –
Commission contended that in the past, physical hearings were held at
these places because tariff proposals were under consideration, not draft
regulations, and that people had diverse points of view to express.
However, by the Commission’s own input, there is a large response from
the stakeholders who wish to put forth their suggestions to the present
draft regulations as well. According to the Petitioner, the proposals
contained in the draft regulations are likely to affect a large number of
persons who are anxious to present their views. Therefore, we find no
justifiable reason for the Commission to deviate from this past practice for
the present public hearing. As to the exact modalities, such as time and
venue (hall, etc.) at these four locations, it is left to the Commission to
decide as they involve logistical considerations.
26. In the result, we direct that the Respondent – Commission, in
furtherance of the notice dated 30 May 2025 issued under the Rules of
2005, will notify the venue of physical public hearings at four locations,
that is, Kozhikode, Palakkad, Ernakulam, and Thiruvananthapuram, as
was done during earlier hearings in respect of previous draft regulations
and tariff proposals. As regards the selection of the venue and timing at
these locations, we leave it to the Commission to decide. The
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:19:-
2025:KER:55670
Commission will endeavour to finalise the venue and time, keeping in
mind the aspects of accessibility, sufficiency, convenience, and safety of
the participants. As regards the regulation of the conduct of the public
hearing, it is for the Commission to formulate a procedure to be
notified in advance, however, taking into account the observations made
in this judgment.
27. It is open to the Commission to request the additional
Respondents, namely, the State Police Chief and the City Police
Commissioner, to deploy sufficient police personnel to assist the
Commission for an orderly physical public hearing at the afore-
mentioned locations. Upon such request being received, the additional
Respondents will provide necessary assistance to the Commission.
28. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/-
NITIN JAMDAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI,
JUDGE
krj/-
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(PIL).79/2025 -:20:-
2025:KER:55670
APPENDIX OF WP(PIL) 79/2025
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE
DOMESTIC ON-GRID SOLAR POWER PROSUMERS FORUM-KERALA ALONG
WITH IT’S ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER DATED 07.07.2025
ISSUED BY DOMESTIC ON-GRID SOLAR POWER PROSUMERS FORUM-
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY OF KERALA
STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NO. 3228/CON.
ENGG/2023/KSERC DATED 12.08.2024.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 3228/CON (ENGG)/2023/KSERC
DATED 13.01.2025.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PREFACE OF THE DISCUSSION PAPER.
EXHIBIT P6 THE NOTICE DATED 30.05.2025 WITH THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
DRAFT REGULATIONS 2025.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 230/CON. ENGG/2023/KSERC
DATED 28.02.2024.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KSEBL/TRAC/G/TARIFF
REVISION/2024-25/656 DATED 07.09.2024.
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS NOTE RELEASED BY THE RESPONDENT
DATED 19.06.2022 AND IT’S ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.