IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7351 of 2026 Decided on: 12th May, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/s Vijay Soni Solar Projects …..Petitioner Versus H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. N.K. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Vinay Mehta and Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the issues raised in this writ petition and the relief claimed herein have already been adjudicated upon against the petitioner in M/s Jai Maa Sitala Solar Power Project Versus H.P. State Electricity Regulatory 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Commission and another2 and M/s Tissa Hydro Power Private Limited Versus H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission and another3. Operative portion of M/s Jai Maa Sitala Solar Power Project2 reads as under:- “5. In view of statutory remedy available to the petitioners, these writ petitions are disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The period spent in pursuing these writ petitions shall not be computed for purposes of limitation.” Operative portion of M/s Tissa Hydro Power Private Limited3 is as under:- “5. For the forgoing, in view of statutory remedy available to the petitioners, these writ petitions are disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The period spent in pursuing these writ petitions shall not be computed for purposes of limitation.” Following the ratio of above decisions, this writ petition is also disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate statutory remedy available to it in accordance with law. The period spent in pursuing this writ petition shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 12, 2026 Judge Mukesh 2 CWP No.2747 of 2026, decided alongwith connected matters on 10.03.2026 3 CWP No.8610 of 2025, decided alongwith connected matters on 23.03.2026