ORDER VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J. – In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the letter, dated 7-7-2018 by which the respondent No. 1 has terminated the Power Purchase Agreement (for brevity, ‘the PPA’), dated 18-9-2015 which was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 7. 2. The petitioner is a power generating company under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the respondent No. 1 is a Trading Licensee under the provisions of the Act and is responsible for power procurement in the State of Madhya Pradesh. A solar policy was introduced by the New and Renewable Energy Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, respondent No. 2 herein, on 20-7-2012 for encouraging generation of power through Solar Power Projects. A Request for Proposal (for short, ‘RFP’) was issued by the respondent No. 2 on 18-8-2015 inviting interested parties to submit their RFP. A Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 18-8-2015 for procurement of solar power from grid connected solar projects was issued on 18-8-2015 in favour of M/s Sky Power Southeast Asia Holding Ltd. by the respondent No. 1. 3. A Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) was entered into between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner on 18-8-2015 for setting up a 50 MW solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant at Village, Bedhsya, District Khandwa and sale of power from the said plant exclusively to the respondent No. 1. In January, 2016 the petitioner requested the respondent No. 1 to approve acquisition of private land for the Project on the leasehold basis and to issue necessary amendment to the PPA to this effect. A letter dated 20-4-2016 was issued to the petitioner amending Clause 2.1.1(f) of the PPA. The respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 16-11-2016 for approval for registration of the Project. 4. According to the petitioner despite delay on the part of the respondents, it achieved the condition subsequent and intimated to the respondent on 10-3-2017. A notice dated 4-7-2017 was issued to the petitioner informing commissioning of project and for inspection by the Chief Engineer (Electricity Safety) and Chief Electrical Inspector to Government (CEIG). It is further pleaded that the CEIG granted approval for inspection, certifying physical commissioning of project on 9-8-2017. A notice dated 4-7-2017 was issued to the petitioner informing commissioning of project and for inspection by the Chief Engineer (Electricity Safety) and Chief Electrical Inspector to Government (CEIG). It is further pleaded that the CEIG granted approval for inspection, certifying physical commissioning of project on 9-8-2017. It is the case of the petitioner that between 22-2-2017 to 10-8-2017, no objection regarding delay was received from the respondent and the petitioner invested about 330 crores to commission project during this period. Despite that, order was issued by the respondent No. 1 on 11-8-2017 terminating the PPA for the alleged failure of the petitioner to fulfil the conditions. A writ petition forming the subject-matter of W. P. No. 12880/2017 was filed seeking quashment of the termination notice dated 11-8-2017 which was allowed on 20-6-2018 and the termination notice dated 11-8-2017 was set aside. The petitioner has also averred that it has also lodged an FIR on 12-9-2017 and 19-3-2018 about the theft of the inverters. It is also claimed that the stolen parts were immediately replaced and the Unit was ready for commissioning, still the impugned communication dated 7-7-2018 has been issued terminating the PPA pursuant to Article 2.5.1(d) and Article 9.1 of the PPA for alleged failure to commission the Project within the time period allowed under the agreement. 5. The respondents raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is contended that if the petitioner had any grievance regarding grant of Short Term Open Access (STOA) they could have exercised alternative remedies available under Regulation 8.31 of the M. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Intra-state Open Access in Madhya Pradesh) Regulation, 2005 framed by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (MPERC) providing Monitoring, Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Committee to resolve any grievance regarding STOA. 6. On 13-1-2020 after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court passed the following order : “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Chief Electrical Inspector (hereinafter referred to as ‘CEI’) had given a report in favour of the petitioner on 9-8-2017, vide Annexure P/11. It was urged that the respondents had carried out inspection on 21-4-2018, vide Annexure P/19, where the report of the CEI was not controverted, but it was reported that certain parts were missing. It was urged that the respondents had carried out inspection on 21-4-2018, vide Annexure P/19, where the report of the CEI was not controverted, but it was reported that certain parts were missing. It was further argued that parts were stolen in respect of which First Information Reports were duly registered. Still further the petitioner has already removed the deficiency of the stolen parts; and, the Project is ready for commissioning on any day as may be directed by this Court. On the aforesaid premises it was argued that the termination of the contract on the part of the respondents was not justified. Keeping in view the huge investment made by the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents pray for time to seek instructions in the matter.” 7. The case came up for further hearing on 28-1-2020. After receiving the instruction, the learned Advocate General produced a communication issued by Chief General Manager (Regional Office), M. P. Power Management Company Limited, Bhopal addressed to the petitioner asking him to attend a meeting on 6-2-2020. It is apt to reproduce the order passed by this Court on 28-1-2020 : “Learned Advocate General has produced a communication issued by the Chief General Manager (Regional Office), M. P. Power Management Company Limited, Bhopal, addressed to the petitioner fixing the date for attending a meeting at Regional Office of MPPMCL at Bhopal on 6th February, 2020 at 15:00 hrs. to discuss issues with respect to the termination of the Power Purchase Agreement dated 18-9-2015 for 50 MW Solar Power Project regarding which this writ petition has been filed. The same is taken on record.” 8. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute could not be resolved in the meeting, as the respondent No. 1 asked the representative of the petitioner for exploring the option of a “Third Party Sale” and that any permits/approval which may be required for commissioning of the petitioner’s Project in relation to “Third Party Sale” would be expedited by the respondent No. 1. The said proposal was not acceptable to the petitioner, as according to him it would amount to petitioner’s giving-up and relinquishing all its rights under the PPA. Since the parties could not arrive at an amicable settlement, therefore, the matter has been heard on merit. 9. From the pleadings the following undisputed facts have emerged : “1. The said proposal was not acceptable to the petitioner, as according to him it would amount to petitioner’s giving-up and relinquishing all its rights under the PPA. Since the parties could not arrive at an amicable settlement, therefore, the matter has been heard on merit. 9. From the pleadings the following undisputed facts have emerged : “1. The total permissible period to commission the Project is 24 months from the date of Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), i.e. from 18-9-2015 to 17-9-2017. 2. The PPA was terminated on 11-8-2017 (within 1 month and 6 days), that is before expiry of the outer limit of 24 months. 3. The Project involves two milestones namely, (i) to achieve Condition Subsequent after signing of PPA (permissions, procurement of land etc.); and (ii) actual commission of project. 4. The earlier termination of PPA by order dated 11-8-2017 on the ground of 54 days delay in achieving first milestone was set aside by this Court in W. P. No. 12880/2017. 5. Admittedly, the Project was certified to be complete much prior to 24 months ending on 17-9-2017. Notice of Commissioning was issued on 4-7-2017, vide Annexure-P/10 and the CEIG approval on 9-8-2017 (Annexure-P/11). 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has invested about 350 crores and the Unit is ready for commissioning. It is also urged that the CEIG had given a report in favour of the petitioner on 9-8-2017, Annexure-P/11 and the respondents had also carried out inspection on 21-4-2018, Annexure-P/19. Further, the report of the CEIG was not controverted, whereas only deficiency was reported that certain inverters/parts were missing. A report regarding theft was duly reported and registered and the petitioner has already removed the deficiency of stolen parts which is not disputed. 11. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, it is contended that termination of the contract on the part of the respondent is not justified and the same is contrary to the Solar Policy of the State Government which has been framed for encouraging generation of power through Solar Power Project. He also placed reliance on the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ReNew Clean Energy Private Limited vs. M. P. Power Management Company Limited and another, W. P. No. 12432/2017, decided on 18-8-2017 where under similar circumstances termination of the contract was set aside and the petition was allowed. 12. He also placed reliance on the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ReNew Clean Energy Private Limited vs. M. P. Power Management Company Limited and another, W. P. No. 12432/2017, decided on 18-8-2017 where under similar circumstances termination of the contract was set aside and the petition was allowed. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has failed to carry out the contract as per terms and conditions and, therefore, contract has been rightly terminated. However, the report of the CEIG and the factum of removal of deficiency of stolen inverters/parts could not be disputed. 13. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and bestowed our anxious consideration on the arguments advanced. In view of narration of facts of the present case and the undisputed facts floating on record, we do not perceive any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner should be relegated to avail alternative remedy when there is no dispute on facts that the petitioner has invested 350 crores for establishing the Unit and after replacing the stolen parts the Unit is ready for commissioning on any day. From the facts on record, it is axiomatic that the period to commission the Project was 24 months i.e. from 18-9-2015 to 17-9-2017 from the date of PPA. The contract was terminated on 11-8-2017 even before expiry of the outer limit of 24 months. Earlier, PPA was terminated vide order dated 11-8-2017 on the ground of delay of 54 days in achieving the first milestone which was set aside by this Court in W. P. No. 12880/2017. It is apt to mention that the Project involves two milestones, namely, (i) to achieve Condition Subsequent after signing of PPA (Permissions, Procurement of land etc.); and (ii) actual commission of Project. It is not in dispute that the Project was certified to be completed much prior to 24 months ending on 17-9-2017 and notice of commissioning was issued on 4-7-2017. The CEIG approval was also granted on 9-8-2017. Another inspection was done on 21-4-2018 after nine months of notice of commissioning and CEIG approval, in spite thereof the impugned order has been passed. 14. The CEIG approval was also granted on 9-8-2017. Another inspection was done on 21-4-2018 after nine months of notice of commissioning and CEIG approval, in spite thereof the impugned order has been passed. 14. Thus, in view of the obtaining factual matrix, it is undisputedly established that both the milestones of the Project were complete whereas only some of the inverters were stolen for which an FIR was also lodged. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid parts have been replaced by the petitioner. In the case of RENew Clean Energy Private Limited (supra) this Court after referring to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553 and State of Kerala and others vs. M. K. Jose, (2015) 9 SCC 433 held that interference in contractual matters depends upon prevailing circumstances and there is no absolute bar to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in contractual matters. Jurisdiction to interfere is the discretion of the Court which depends upon facts of each case. 15. In view of our preceding analysis, we find that the decision taken by the respondent terminating the contract of the petitioner is wholly unjustified and arbitrary. We accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 7-7-2018, Annexure-P/1, considering the statement that the Unit is ready for physical commissioning and only some statutory sanctions are required. Consequently, it is directed that the petitioner shall submit necessary applications for statutory sanction for operation of the Unit and the respondent/State shall decide those applications expeditiously in accordance with law in quite promptitude. 16. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.