[2026:RJ-JP:20254] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6688/2026 M/s Solartree Green Energy, Through Its Partner Mrs Shalini Pawar W/o Er. Dharmendra Pawar Aged About 57 Years, R/o Villa No. 32, Nandan Greens, Khem Ka Kua, Pal Road, Jodhpur-342008. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of New And Renewable Energy (Mnre), Atal Akshay Urja Bhawan, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Building, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Managing Director, Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., E-166-Yudhisthir Marg C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001 ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6315/2025 1. M/s Power Solar, R/o Villa 32, Nandan Greens, Khem Ka Kua, Pal Road, Jodhpur -342008 2. Holysun Energy, R/o Villa 32, Nandan Greens, Khem Ka Kua, Pal Road, Jodhpur- 342008 3. Solar Tree Green Energy, R/o Villa 32, Nandan Greens, Khem Ka Kua, Pal Road Jodhpur -342008, Corporate Office At-Villa No. 32, Nandan Greens, Khem Ka Kua, Pal Road,jodhpur - 342008, Rajasthan, Through Authorised Partner, Dr. Dharmendra Pawar, S/o Shri Kune Singh Pawar , Aged About 62 Years, R/o Villa No. 32, Nandan Greens, Khem Ka Kua, Pal Road, Jodhpur - 342008 ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of New And Renewable Energy (Mnre), Atal Akshay Urja Bhawan, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Building, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Additional Chief Secretary (Energy), Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur - 302005. 4. Chairman, Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. (Rrecl), E-166, Yudhishthir Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302001. 5. Managing Director Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited ( Rrecl), E -166 Yudhishthir Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur- 302001 ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6689/2026 M/s Holysun Energy, Through Its Partner Mrs Shalini Pawar W/o Er. Dharmendra Pawar Aged About 57 Years, R/o Villa No. 32. Nandan Greens, Khem Ka Kua, Pal Road, Jodhpur-342008. [2026:RJ-JP:20254] (2 of 6) [CW-6688/2026] ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of New And Renewable Energy (Mnre), Atal Akshay Urja Bhawan, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Building, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Managing Director, Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., E-166-Yudhisthir Marg C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001 ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6690/2026 M/s Power Solar, Through Its Partner Mrs Shalini Pawar W/o Er. Dharmendra Pawar Aged About 57 Years, R/o Villa No. 32, Nandan Greens, Khem Ka Kua, Pal Road, Jodhpur-342008. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of New And Renewable Energy (Mnre), Atal Akshay Urja Bhawan, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Building, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Managing Director, Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., E-166-Yudhisthir Marg C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. K. Mishra Mr. R. C. Goutam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal Ms. Anima Chaturvedi for Mr. Samaksh Dasot HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 13/05/2026 1. In the instant matters, a cumulative petition was initially filed in the year 2025 with the following prayers:- "a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondents to release the legitimate dues of the petitioners forthwith. b) Quash the arbitrary blacklisting imposed on the Petitioners. [2026:RJ-JP:20254] (3 of 6) [CW-6688/2026] c) Orders to release security deposit amount and the amount of publicity expenses which was incurred in compliance with schemes of government. d) Directions may be given to the Respondents to explain the changes in policies to the public through Media or the customers who had booked the solar system before the changes in policy, so the petitioner may not be jeopardized further.” e) Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) deemed just, fair and equitable in the interest of justice." 2. Thereafter in the year 2026, individual petitions were filed with the same set of prayers. The said fact has duly been declared by the petitioners in ‘Notes’ of the present writ petitions. However, during the course of the hearing, the petitioners restricted their prayers primarily to two substantive reliefs: (i) Quashing of the blacklisting orders, or in the alternative, the issuance of a formal communication declaring that the blacklisting period is over. (ii) The quantification and release of their legitimate dues and security deposits arising out of the commercial dispute. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the present petitions and raised a strong preliminary objection regarding their maintainability. Relying upon an earlier order dated 06.09.2022 passed in S.B.CWP No. 6688/2026, it is submitted that the work of design, supply, installation, testing, commissioning, and maintenance of grid-connected SPV power plants under the ‘Rooftop Solar Power Generation Scheme 2019-20’ in Rajasthan were allocated to the petitioners for a period of five years by the Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited (for short, ‘RRECL’). In the said order, it was duly reflected that the petitioners have utterly failed to [2026:RJ-JP:20254] (4 of 6) [CW-6688/2026] adhere to the prescribed work schedules, and therefore, extensions coupled with penalties on two distinct occasions have been granted to the petitioners. It is further reflected that the respondent-RRECL received multiple grievances from consumers, alleging that the petitioners had collected advance payments but failed to install the solar plants. In fact, it is an admitted position by the petitioner that qua 70 consumers, payments were realized, yet the projects were neither taken up nor were the grievances resolved. 4. In this backdrop, respondent-RRECL asked the petitioners to complete all the pending projects and to submit the appropriate documents by way of a Show Cause Notice dated 29.04.2022. However, due to the petitioners’ non-cooperation, categorical directives were subsequently issued on 09.05.2022 by the respondents, which are as follows: “1. No further extension will be given to your firm for completion of pending projects. 2. To refund the advance amount immediately to the Beneficiaries from whom firm had taken the payment but installation of RTS plants did not take up. 3. For verification of commissioned projects, RRECL have deputed the officers from Head Office.” 5. A physical verification was also requested by the respondent- RRECL and inspecting officers were deputed but there was still no cooperation from the petitioners. It is further submitted that a final notice was also issued to the petitioners following the principles of audi alteram partem, however, the said opportunity was not effectively utilized by the petitioners, and therefore on account of the same, specific directions were passed to forfeit the security deposit amount, which are reproduced as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:20254] (5 of 6) [CW-6688/2026] “i) You have completed less than 50% of the total allocated capacity. ii) Large capacity had not taken up by you despite continuous and rigorous pursuance by RRECL and extension of the scheme upto 31.03.2022. iii) Non co-operation by your firm for physical verification of the commissioned projects. iv) You had not completed the RTS projects of the consumers from whom you had taken the substantial payment. This had caused harassment to the residential consumers. In view of the above facts, Security Deposit amounting to Rs. 3,48,960/- furnishing by you in the form of Demand Draft/RTGS/NEFT under the Rate Contract is hereby forfeited and your firm is debarred and blacklisted for a period of three years from the date of issuance of this letter. The remaining payment due against subsidy towards completion of RTS projects shall also remain on Hold with RRECL. This is issued without prejudice to the terms and conditions of the Tender Document and Rate Contract.” 6. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Firstly, qua the prayer against the blacklisting, it is an admitted position that the specified tenure of the blacklisting order has already lapsed by the efflux of time. Therefore, the said issue has been rendered entirely infructuous and is presently merely of academic importance. It is also contended by the respondents that there is no statutory requirement for the authorities to issue a formal declaratory letter acknowledging the completion of the blacklisting period. 8. Secondly, qua the prayers seeking the quantification and release of purported legitimate dues and security deposits, this Court notes that the same are inherently rooted in a purely commercial and contractual dispute. It is a well-settled position of [2026:RJ-JP:20254] (6 of 6) [CW-6688/2026] law that such highly disputed questions of fact, which require detailed accounting and evidentiary proof, cannot be meticulously examined or adjudicated within the circumscribed summary scope of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. Moreover, this Court takes note of the fact that multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered against the petitioners by the aggrieved consumers, and investigations pertaining to the same are presently ongoing. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking note of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy before the appropriate forum for the resolution of such commercial disputes, this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere in the present matters. 11. Accordingly, the present batch of writ petitions stands dismissed. 12. The petitioners are at liberty to raise their grievances qua the before the appropriate competent forum, if they so choose, strictly in accordance with the law. 13. It is made clear that the dismissal of these petitions and any observations made herein shall not cause prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties on merits before such forum. 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /119-122