Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Jai Maa Sitala Solar Power Project – Appellant
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
1. All these petitions are identical, based upon same set of pleadings, claiming same reliefs, hence, are taken up together.
2. All these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.2747 of 2026 read as under:-
“b. Quash and set aside order(s) dated 4.11.2023 23.2.2024 passed by respondent No.1 in suo moto petition No.8/2023 arbitrarily and unilaterally fixing the normative O&M charges for solar PV Generators connected through solid tap having interconnection voltage level of 11/22 kV (above 500 KW and up 1 MW capacity);
c. Quash and set-aside communication dated 15.10.2025 issued on behalf of respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioner to deposit Rs.51,920/- towards Operation and Maintenance charges for its Solar Power Project connected with HPSEBL;
d. In the alternative, the non-applicants respondents may be directed to conduct a proper study and lay down proper principles/basis for fixing O&M charges for Solar Power Projects connected through Solid tap having interconnection voltage level of 11/22 kV (above 250 KW and up to 500 KW capacity) on cost basis and not on capacity basis;
e. Respo
Writ petitions under Article 226 against electricity regulatory commission orders fixing O&M charges not maintainable due to efficacious statutory appeal remedy under Section 111 of Electricity Act, ....
Writ petitions challenging regulatory fixation of normative O&M charges as tariff component not maintainable due to statutory appeal to expert Appellate Tribunal under Electricity Act, absent jurisdi....
The High Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over a writ petition due to the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under the Electricity Act, affirming that tariff regulation issues fall ....
Tariff determination for hydro projects with enhanced capacity, binding nature of prior PPAs on successors, and writ jurisdiction limited; exclusive domain of regulatory commission, not courts, to fi....
Writ under Article 226 not maintainable against regulatory order where statutory appeal available, issues involve disputed facts/law, and no jurisdictional error or natural justice violation; exhaust....
The Central Government lacks the legislative competence to frame rules regarding open access in electricity, which is exclusively regulated by the State Commission under the Electricity Act.
The Ombudsman erred in failing to recognize the commercial relationship between the parties, which affected the determination of electricity tariff under the Electricity Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
