1. In writ petitions No.6546/2023 and 6550/2023 the petitioner-companies are aggrieved of a portion of Government Order bearing No. ENERGY 74 NCE 2022, Bengaluru, dated, 25.11.2022 and they are seeking to quash communications at Annexure-N, whereby they are forced to comply with the offending portion of the Government Order dated 25.11.2022 and to submit a revised proposal and revised WTG co-ordinates. The said petitioners are also seeking directions to the respondent-Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Limited (KREDL) to allow the applications of the 1st petitioner to transfer a portion of the allotment in favor of the 2nd petitioner. The petitioners in the other two writ petitions in W.P.No.11271/2023 and 11272/2023 (M/s. FP Sun Spark/ FPEL Trizoners) who have been granted Government Orders at the hands of the KREDL are aggrieved of condition No.7 imposed in the Government Orders. The said condition seeks to carve out such areas for the benefit of the petitioners in W.P.No.6546/2023 and 6550/2023. The grievances being interlinked, the writ petitions were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience M/s. Vish Wind will be referred to as petitioner No.1, M/s. VAAYU RENEWABLE ENERGY (MEVASA) PRIVATE LIMITED, will be referred to as petitioner No.2 and M/s. FP Sun Spark/ FPEL Trizoners will be referred to as the private/contesting respondents.

3. The undisputed facts are that having regard to the aspirations of the State of Karnataka to develop renewable energy, the 2nd respondent-KREDL was chosen as a nodal agency for implementation and encouragement of renewal energy projects in the State of Karnataka and in terms of the Karnataka Renewable Energy Policy, 2009-2014, KREDL notified advertisements calling upon private entrepreneurs to invest and set up renewal energy projects in the State of Karnataka. In terms of the policy, KREDL would receive the applications, examine the proposals and submit the same to the State Government along with its recommendations. The applicants had to file applications for capacity allotment for the proposed renewal energy project along with stipulated documents and fees. KREDL would forward the applications along with its recommendations to the Allotment Committee. The Allotment Committee would consider the proposal along with the recommendations of the KRDEL and forward the same with its own recommendations to the government. The government would take the final decision on issuance of the Government Order for capacity allotment. The Government Order would permit the project with specific capacity and earmark locations where the projects may be set up. On issuance of the Government Order the allottee was required to execute an agreement with KREDL for allotment of capacity. Provision was made for the allottee to seek enhancement of capacity of the project or the area. Provision was also made for transfer of rights in the capacity allotment to a third party, by making an application to KREDL. The timeline for completion of the project, is as stipulated in Clause-9(v) of the RE 2009-14 Policy.

4. The 1st Petitioner-Vish Wind Infrastrukture LLP (hereinafter referred to as ‘Vish Wind’, for short) filed an application on 20.02.2019 and Government Order bearing No.EN 137 NCE 2019, dated 11.05.2020 was issued in favour of the 1st petitioner. The geographical area allotted to the 1st petitioner was demarked into two parts. Part ‘A’ consisted of geographical area in Dharwad District and Part ‘B’ in Gadag District. Since the Government Order did not specify the Wind power capacity for each of the two areas, by way of an amendment, Government Order dated 19.02.2021 was issued. As per the amendment, Part ‘A’ was allotted 6.4 MW capacity and Part ‘B’ was allotted 1.6 MW capacity.

5. The Government of Karnataka notified new RE Policy, 2022-2027 on 30.04.2022. Under the new Policy the applicant is reqired to furnish an application containing the project details including the co- ordinates of each WTG (Wind Turbine Generators) along with the survey number of the land required for the implementation of the project. As per the new Policy the developer is required to conduct the technical feasibility study and Wind source assessment in advance and submit a detailed project report including the WTG co-ordinates, along with the application. The marked difference between the old and new policy is, unlike the old policy where large tract of lands could be sought for and allotted, in the new policy specifics of the maximum land area/space to be utilized by the developer for Wind project is stipulated. For upto 2.5 MW WTG – 5 acres is allowed per WTG; from 2.51 MW to 4 MW- 10 acres are allowed per WTG; above 4 MW WTG land requirement shall be reviewed from time to time based on the models approved by MNRE in the RLMM. The project developer is required to tender micro siting as per MNRE guidelines for development of onshore Wind power projects.

6. Consequent to the notification of the new RE Policy, the 1st petitioner was directed to resubmit the proposal demarcating the land area for 8 MW (6.4 + 1.6 MW) which was granted earlier to the 1st petitioner and that the proposal should be in conformity with the new policy which stipulated 4 acres per WTG. The 1st petitioner was also informed that if the WTG co- ordinates are not received from the 1st petitioner within 10 days from the date of notice dated 25.01.2023 at Annexure-H, the land requirement for 8 MW capacity shall be considered as 4 acres per WTG. The 1st petitioner gave a reply dated 02.02.2023 stating that there was some delay in completing study activities due to COVID and lockdown but, it will utilize the entire geographical area mentioned in the Government Order dated 11.05.2020 by filing necessary application within 12 to 16 weeks from the date of the said reply. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner filed an application seeking to transfer 2.10 MW out of 6.4 MW in favor of the 2nd petitioner and simultaneously 2nd petitioner filed an application for transfer of 2.10 MW out of 6.4 MW from the 1st petitioner and sought enhancement of 2.1 MW capacity to 96.60 MW. It is contended that the 2nd petitioner paid the prescribed fee of Rs.1,09,65,150/- along with the application. The respondent-KREDL did not accept the proposal of the petitioners for transfer and enhancement on the ground that some of the proposed WTG co-ordinates of the 2nd petitioner were over lapping with other project proposals. The 2nd petitioner was directed to submit revised proposal with revised WTG co-ordinates. The petitioners understood that the other project proposals which were referred in the communication dated 08.03.2023 were respondents No.3 and 4 (writ petitioners in W.P.No.11271/2023 and 11272/2023). The writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.6456/2023 and 6550/2023 are aggrieved of the non-acceptance of their application for transfer and enhancement of the capacity.

7. On the other hand, the contesting respondents who are also the writ petitioners in W.P.No.11271/2023 and 11272/2023 viz., M/s. FP Sun Spark/ FPEL Trizoners, are aggrieved of the inclusion of condition No.7 in their respective Government Orders. It is the contention of the respondents that since the application for transfer and enhancement of the capacity filed by the petitioners was rejected by KREDL, such condition as found in Clause -7 could not have been imposed in the Government Order granted to the respondents.

8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.S.Naganand appearing on behalf of Vish Wind submits that having regard to the timelines found in Clause -9(v) of RE 2009-14 Policy, which is applicable to the 1st petitioner, the wind power project had to be completed within 6½ years including all extensions. The timeline for completion of renewal energy project stood amended by corrigendum dated 18.07.2011, much before the Government Order was issued in favor of the 1st petitioner. The Government Order having been issued to the 1st petitioner on 11.05.2020, the Clauses contained in the old RE Policy 2009-14 alone can be made applicable and therefore, the 1st petitioner had every right to seek transfer and enhancement of capacity till 11.11.2026. In that view of the matter, the learned Senior Counsel submits that KREDL could not have rejected the application for transfer in favour of the 2nd petitioner and it could not have rejected the application for enhancement of capacity.

9. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.S.Naganand sought to place reliance on the following judgments in support of his contentions that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applied to the State. All administrative orders should ordinarily be considered prospective in nature. When a policy decision is required to be given a retrospective operation, it must be stated so expressly or by necessary implication;

"(1) Kusumam Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 213 [LQ/SC/2008/1277]

(2) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and others Vs. TATA Communications Ltd. e tc. and Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1280

(3) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (1979) 2 SCC 409 [LQ/SC/1978/389] "

10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court that when these matters came for preliminary hearing, an interim order was passed on 23.03.2023 staying the operation of the Government Order dated 25.11.2022 and communication dated 25.01.2023 at Annexure-H till the next date of hearing. It is submitted that although the interim orders passed by this Court was brought to the notice of the respondent-State and KREDL, a Government Order dated 24.03.2023 was issued in favour of the contesting respondents. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore contend that the respondent-State, KREDL and M/s. FP Sun Spark/ FPEL Trizoners should not be permitted to justify the allotment made to the contesting respondents in terms of a Government Order which was issued in violation of the court orders. On the same lines, it is contended that the contesting respondents will have no locus standi to question the imposition of condition No.7 in this Government Order, since the said Government Order itself is liable to be cancelled and set aside. It was pointed out that in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd., Vs. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449, [LQ/SC/2007/1021 ;] it was held that if orders of the courts are disobeyed, the court may refuse the party violating such order to hear the party on merits.

11. Per contra, the State, KREDL and the contesting respondents seek to vehemently oppose the contentions of the petitioners. Although it is not disputed that the contract awarded to the 1st petitioner on 11.05.2020 was on the basis of RE 2009- 2014 policy, nevertheless, the policy was already on reconsideration having regard to the deficiencies found in the policy. In this regard, attention of this Court was drawn to a decision of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of SRK Energy Pvt. Ltd., /vs./ State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.9174/2022 and connected matters. It was pointed out that under similar circumstances where a portion of the earmarked land was divested and allotted to another entity, and such diversion was questioned before this Court, this Court held that there is force in the contention of the contesting respondents that the petitioners whose claims have not yet become concrete and choate, cannot seek to stick on to a particular piece of earth, especially when KREDL has assured that the petitioners can be accommodated in any other piece of land comprised in the vast extent already earmarked in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that such a contention raised at the hands of prior allottee was negated while holding that the petitioners are not justified in raising a hue and cry as if the heavens have fallen down; granting relief as claimed by them virtually amounts to allowing them to hold other competitors in the field for a ransom. It was held that the petitioners who are yet to identify any specific area cannot completely block out the entire extent of the earmarked land that admeasures thousands of acres.

12. During the course of the arguments, this Court had called upon the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for KREDL to furnish certain factual information pertaining to the 1st petitioner, since M/s.Vish Wind claimed to have proceeded diligently to identify the most suited patch of lands to establish the Wind turbines, lay the gridlines and commence the process of electricity generation. On factual verification, learned counsel for KREDL has informed this Court that other than 1st petitioner, only one another allottee had sought for extension of time to fulfill the time lines. It was submitted that the onset of COVID-19 and the inconvenience suffered by the citizens of this country on account of the travel restrictions and lockdown imposed by the Government KREDL did not in any manner put any undue pressure on the allottees, since sufficient time was available to the allottees to meet the timeline and no such request for extension of time came from the majority of the allottees, except the 1st petitioner and one another allottee.

13. The counter contention of the respondent State and KREDL against the 1st petitioner is that the said allottee is not in a position to establish the project and generate electricity and on the other hand it is trying to take advantage of the vast extent of land allocated and is seeking to transfer its rights and enrich itself at the cost of the State. It is submitted that KREDL has given due consideration to the Official Memoranda issued by the Government of India during the COVID-19 period and the lockdown ordered by the State Government in two blocks, the first one for a period of five months and the second for a period of two and a half months. However, the 1st petitioner has done nothing worthwhile in the matter of generating electricity and serve the purpose for which the contract was awarded to it. On the other hand, the 1st petitioner sought for transfer of 1.6 MW on 13.03.2021 and again sought transfer of 2.1 MW on 27.02.2023 in favour of petitioner No.2 herein. No sooner the transfer was permitted on the first occasion, the transferee sought for enhancement from 1.6 MW to 100 MW. In the case of the 2nd petitioner herein, it was pointed out that along with the transfer application, it has sought enhancement from 2.1 MW to 96.6 MW and 98.7 MW.

14. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that even prior to the co-ordinate bench of this court passing orders in the case of SRK Energy (supra), the State Government had contemplated revision of the RE policy, having regard to several deficiencies found in the earlier policy, including the fact that there was no need to earmark vast extents of lands to the allottees, since the experts had opined that it was sufficient to allocate 4 acres of land for erecting each WTG. The learned AAG submitted that such observations have been made by the Co-ordinate bench in the case of SRK Energy (supra) doubting the need for allocation of such vast acres of land, indiscriminately. However, orders were passed by the co-ordinate bench on 21.09.2022, while the new RE policy 2022-2027 was notified on 30.04.2022. As opined by the experts, in the new RE policy, care was taken to ensure that along with the application the project proponent shall give details of each WTG coordinates along with the survey number of the land required for implementation of the project. The learned AAG submitted that the new RE policy was formulated having regard to the deficiencies found in the old policy and the new RE policy is made applicable to all the allottees in whose favour GOs were issued earlier in terms of the old policy and there is no intention of the State or KREDL to prejudice a particular allottee. It is submitted that there has been no grievance aired at the hands of the any other allottee with regard to implementation of the new RE policy.

15. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents that the second petitioner-M/s Vaayu Renewable Energy (Mevasa) Private Limited has no locus standi to file the writ petition, since the application filed by the 1st petitioner seeking transfer of a portion of its rights in favour of the second petitioner has been rejected at the hands of the respondent-KREDL. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner does not have the wherewithal to generate renewable energy, which fact is evident as it has not been able to do any visible progress, but it has been treating the contract / allotment as a real estate business. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner has transferred a portion of its rights in the month of March 2021 following which, the transferee sought for enhancement from 1.6 MW to 100 MW. It is obvious that the 1st petitioner has no qualms in giving up portions of land earmarked for it, in favour of its transferee. On the other hand, it seeks to raise objections if a portion of the lands are allocated to any other entity. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the 1st petitioner has fallen in line accepting the provisions of the new RE policy 2022-2027 in respect of the other portion of the project in Gadag District. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that the 1st petitioner should not be permitted to blow hot and cold in accepting the new RE policy in one part of the contract and opposing it in the other part.

16. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that although transfer was sought by the 1st petitioner in favor of the 2nd petitioner, but no Government Order is issued in favour of the 2nd petitioner, nevertheless, a condition has been imposed in the Government Order issued in favor of the contesting respondents depriving it the freedom to procure the land for the combined 300 MW projects, thus defeating the very purpose of the Government Order. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner has not been able to furnish any material regarding the extent of lands within the earmarked area procured either by way of sale or by agreement, which is the basic need for commencing the project. Most importantly, it is submitted that even in terms of the amended timeline as provided in Clause 9(v), the first stage commencing from zero date (date of allotment), 24 months are provided as stage-I for data collection and submitting the DPR and seeking enhancement, if any. It is therefore submitted that the application for transfer and enhancement coming on 27.02.2023, is beyond the period of 24 months and therefore, the application for transfer made by the petitioners is rightly rejected. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that having regard to the admitted position that the period provided in the timeline, even as per the old RE policy for seeking enhancement having lapsed after 24 months, the respondent KREDL could not have imposed a condition as is done at Clause (7) of its Government Order, depriving the contesting respondents, the liberty to procure lands in the earmarked area.

17. Insofar as, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st petitioner that since the interim orders of this Court were violated and a Government Order was issued in favour of the contesting respondents, is concerned, the AAG, learned Counsel for KREDL and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents have submitted that there is no violation of the court order. It is submitted that M/s. FP Sun Spark/ FPEL Trizoners filed an application on 10.01.2023 seeking grant of project and approval of Government Order.

The application was processed and KREDL placed the application before the State Level Allotment Committee and approval was granted by the Committee and its recommendation was placed before the State Government much before any interim orders were passed by this Court. It is submitted that in terms of the recommendation made by the Allotment Committee, formally the Government Order was issued on 24.03.2023 and it would be inacceptable to contend that the Government Order was passed in violation of the interim orders passed by this Court.

18. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.S.Naganand for the petitioners, learned Addl. Advocate General Sri.Ruben Jacob for the respondent- State, learned Counsel Sri.Prashanth Kumar for KREDL and learned Senior Counsel Sri.Gurudas S Kannur, for the contesting respondents, and perused the petition papers.

19. At the outset, what comes to the mind of this Court, having regard to the flawed policy of the State, is the emphasis laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of public policies regarding the distribution of State largesse in the case of Akhil Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress Vs. State of M.P., (2011) 5 SCC 29, [LQ/SC/2011/517] wherein it was held that State and its instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entity and/or officers of the State. Every action/decision of the State and/or its agencies/ instrumentalities to give largesse or confirm benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible, and well-defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the official gazette and such policy must be implemented by adopting a non- discriminatory and non-arbitrary method. As brought to the notice of this Court, earlier too a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with a similar situation where vast extent of land of 6500 acres were earmarked for a project proponent in terms of the RE policy 2009-2014 and when a small extent of land measuring about 66 acres were sought to be divested, such project proponent sought to challenge the same before this Court. The co-ordinate Bench expressed its anguish that even when the earmarked area were not utilized by the project proponent, it sought to raise a hue and cry on divestment of 1% of such lands. It was also observed that the Court is not sure if the petitioners were justified in securing an absolute interim order of stay at the hands of this Court. The co-ordinate Bench held that the petitioners prayer for issuance a writ of mandamus has been structured on the basis of a Government Order which by itself does not create any choate interest in any particular piece of land. Petitioners who were yet to indentify any specific area cannot completely block out the entire extent of earmarked land that admeasures thousands of acres. It was therefore directed that it is high time that the Government and KREDL ponder over such problems and take appropriate measures so that huge projects of the kind are not imperiled by avoidable litigations as the ones on hand. Otherwise, what would be at stake is, nothing but the public interest.

20. In the considered opinion of this Court, so much has been said by the co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 21.09.2022 and the all important mischief found in the old RE policy 2009-2014 has not been addressed by the Government in the new policy. Admittedly, the State Government intended to establish a dynamic renewable sector with emphasis on different forms of generation- wind, mini-hydro, biomass, cogeneration and solar energy. It was felt that there is a need to have a clear policy frame work to provide and sustain efforts in that directions. It was therefore felt that there is a need for a new renewable energy policy in the State. It was found that there is a need to encourage private entrepreneurs to identify and develop small capacity projects in wind, mini-hydro, biomass, cogeneration and solar energy. Emphasis was laid on generating green energy, reduce harmful effects of global warming and ozone layer depletion. Some key measures were proposed to address the constraints faced by persons and entities which had the wherewithal to generate such green energy but faced difficulty in the matter of purchasing lands and obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner of the Districts or other modes of purchase. Having these things in mind, the RE policy was formulated. It was noticed by the co-ordinate Bench that the policy sought to earmark vast extents of land to a particular allottee. It is noticeable that even in terms of the policy, what was sought to be earmarked were private patta lands and unidentified public lands. Therefore, the project proponents knew that no discrete right would vest in the allottee, even if such lands were earmarked for their benefit. The requirement of the policy was that after the Government Order was issued, the allottee was required to procure the requisite lands either by way of absolute purchase or on lease. Nevertheless, the allottees have sought to take advantage of the earmarking of such vast lands and raised objections when a small portion of such lands were sought to be allotted to another entity.

21. In the statement of objections filed at the hands of the respondent-State and KREDL it has been stated that the allottees have sought to create a monopoly over the geographical area, to the determent of the State. It has been contended that the policy did not in any manner stipulate that the geographically area was allotted exclusively in favour of any party. The idea was to create conditions condusive to private/ public/ community participation and investment in renewable energy power projects. It is contended that if an area is reserved solely for a specific developer then, the said objective of the policy would stand defeated, as it takes away the right of other developer from developing the project in the same area, which is not the purport of the policy. It has also been contended that the allottee may not have the capacity to install the project in the geographical location and may only partially install the capacity. Under such circumstances, no allottee can claim exclusivity over the earmarked area.

22. Having said all this, this Court fails to understand as to why the policy provided for transfer of rights. During the course of the proceedings, this court had called upon the learned AAG as well as the learned Counsel for the KREDL to point out from the policy document as to whether there is a provision made for the applicant who was granted the Government Order to transfer its rights in favour of another entity. It was also required to point out that if there is no such express provision, then why the application for transfer of rights were being entertained. In compliance of the same, the respondent-KREDL had filed a memo dated 16.01.2024 only pointing out that in Clause 25 of the RE policy 2009-2014 the State Government had reserved its authority to issue connected Government Order and Government Order for transfer of capacity. This court fails to understand as to why such transfers were permitted, which would become a tool in the hands of such allottees who didn’t have the wherewithal to implement the project. If the intention of the State was to allot such projects to entities which had the capacity and wherewithal to implement the projects, then where was the need to allow transfer of the rights Only such allottees who were not in a position to implement the project would seek transfer of their rights, and at a premium of course.

23. Having regard to the earlier experiences where an allottee was granted Government Order, say to an extent of 16 MW, it would seek transfer of 1 or 2 MW to another entity. As soon as such transfer is permitted, the transferee would immediately seek enhancement for about 100 MW. As noticed hereinabove, the original allottee is more than willing to share the earmarked land with such transferee, but it would raise objections if similar lands are to be allotted to any other entity. Nevertheless, this Court is of the considered opinion that the new RE policy

2022-2027 failed to address the mischief area. The new RE policy should have done away with the provision for transfer. The State should have retained the power to allot the rights instead of allowing the allottees to seek transfer of such rights. This is the reason why this Court is constrained to hold that the RE policy of the State is flawed.

24. Insofar as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners regarding the promissory estoppel, this court should point out from the decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel in the case of Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., and another Vs. Sai Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., and Others (2011) 11 SCC 34, [LQ/SC/2010/661] where it was held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not really based on principle of estoppels, but is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice. There is no reason why it should be given only a limited application. It was held that even if it is assumed that there was a kind of unequivocal promise or representation given by the respondents, the review therein took place only after the period specified under the guidelines. In the present case too, since the application for transfer and subsequent enhancement at the hands of the petitioners came long after the stipulated period, the application is rightly to be rejected. This Court does not see any injustice being done to the petitioners.

25. Further, having regard to the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of SRK Energy (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that since the first petitioner filed an application after lapse of 24 months in terms of the time line stipulated in the old RE policy 2009-2014 and the corrigendum dated 18.07.2011 and with the lenience shown, having regard to the OMs issued by the Government of India on account of COVID 19, and since the first petitioner allottee failed to submit the DPR and seek enhancement within the stipulated time, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought in their petitions. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the issuance of Government Orders in favor of the first petitioner did not give it any monopolistic rights over the earmarked area. It is given to understand that the area earmarked to the 1st petitioner for 8MW is around 64,000 acres and in terms of the New RE Policy 2022-27, at the rate of 4 acres per WTG, only a few hundred acres may be allotted to the 1st petitioner. Similarly, if about 300 MW is the capacity allotted to the contesting respondents, they may identify about 1200 acres of land. It still leaves more than 55,000 to 60,000 acres to the 1st petitioner, depending on how much of it has been shared with its own transferees. It is also doubtful as to whether the 1st petitioner has procured even a few hundred acres till date. In that view of the matter, the issuance of Government Order in favour of the contesting respondents cannot be faulted. However, stipulation of condition No.7 in the Government Order issued in favour of the contesting respondents-M/s. FP Sun Spark/FPEL Trizoners cannot be sustained.

26. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) W.P.Nos.6546/2023 and 6550/2023 are dismissed.

(ii) W.P.Nos.11271/2023 and 11272/2023 are allowed while setting aside condition No.7 imposed in their respective Government Orders.

Ordered accordingly.

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed off.