IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.19/2016 Date of Decision: 05th December, 2025. M/s Tissa Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Pran Shah Hydro ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.08.2015, whereby an injunction has been granted by the First Appellate Court. The petitioner is the defendant before the learned trial Court. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present petition. 3. In the suit filed by the present respondent/plaintiff, no injunction had been granted by the learned trial Court, however, in appeal, vide impugned order, an injunction had been granted in favour of the present respondent. 4. Admittedly, in the case at hand, both the parties to the lis have in certain specific elevations of the Bhawanda tributary been allowed construction of hydro-electric power plants. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 41 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 specifically sub-Section (ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The same is reproduced herein below for a ready reference:- “41. Injunction when refused:- An injunction cannot be granted. …………. [(ha) if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of relevant facility related thereto or services being the subject matter of such project.]” 5. In pursuance to the Section 41(ha), a Schedule has been incorporated in the Specific Relief Act, wherein category of project, sub-sectors have been defined. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that electricity generation, transmission and distribution are detailed in sub-sector projects under the category energy. 6. In view of the specific embargo, now contained in the Specific Relief Act, which was introduced on 01.10.2018, completion of a hydro electric power plant cannot be impeded by grant of any injunction. 7. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the present petitioner/defendant has been restrained from diverting the flow of water of the Bhawanda tributary for his non-consumptive use for generation of electricity. It is rather difficult to understand how a hydro power plant would run without water. 8. In view thereof, the operative part of the order, whereby diversion of flow of water of Bhawanda Tributary for 3 running the project of the petitioner/defendant has been injuncted during the interregnum, shall stand vacated. However, it is made clear that both the parties would have a right to construct their respective hydro power plants within their allowed elevations. 9. Any infraction thereto can only be suitably determined by the learned trial Court after conclusion of the trial. At this stage, one cannot come to the conclusion, as to whether any party has violated the elevations so allowed to them. To the extent that the First Appellate Court injuncts the present petitioner/defendant from interfering in the elevation allotted to the present respondent/plaintiff. I see no infirmity in the order, which calls for interference. 10. In view of the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 05th December, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)