WP/42404/2026 of m/s. ahil green energie pvt ltd Vs tamil nadu electricity regulatory commission on 14 October 2026

ORDER

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

2. The writ petition is filed for the following relief ; “directing the 2nd to 4th respondents to revise clause para 5 (V) of the Page No.6 of the Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 01.05.2026 completely in line and consistent with Para 5.5.8. of the Solar Tariff Order No.9 to 2020 dated 16.10.2020 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the 4th respondent to accept the invoices of the petitioner from 30.03.2026 for the encashment of the unutilized Surplus Solar Energy available at their account at the end of each month, at 75% of the tariff discovered in the competitive bidding which is Rs.3.04/- and to effect the payment, within the due dates, as provided in the Order No.9 of 2020 dated 16.10.2020.”

3. Learned counsel for petitioner as well as respondents would submit that the issue raised in this writ petition stand covered by the orders of this Court in W.P.No.31457 of 2025 dated 20.08.2025 and W.P.No.49777 of 2025 dated 19.12.2025, wherein it was held as under: “3. A similar writ petition was filed before this Court in WP No.14115 of 2025 and the said writ petition was disposed of on the following terms and the entire order from paragraph No. 3 to 10 is extracted hereunder:~

3. The case of the petitioner is that they are having the high tension service connection under the jurisdiction of the third respondent. The petitioner made an application to the second respondent for arrangement of 2 MW Solar Power Plant. The petitioner was directed to pay the applicable charges besides the refundable security deposit. The second respondent also issued “Noted for Record“ letter to the petitioner directing the Solar Power Plant to be commissioned and synchronised in the grid belonging to the respondents. The petitioner also satisfactorily commissioned the plant and the same was also certified by the respondents.

4. Under instructions from the second respondent, the third respondent had sent a letter enclosing Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 29.05.2021. On perusal of the agreement, it was found that it contained clauses contrary to the tariff order passed by the first respondent commission in order No.9/20 dated 16.10.2020. As a result, the second respondent restricted the petitioner from raising invoices for the unutilized excess solar energy whenever available after consumption during the month. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court.

5. It is relevant to take note of the order passed by the first respondent in M.P.No.47 of 2021 dated 11.05.2023. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “6.Finding of the Commission on the first issue: In view of the findings rendered by this Commission on issue no.2 to 5, the only irresistible conclusion that can be arrived at on this issue is that clause 24(IV) of the Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 03.03.2021 is inconsistent with clause 5.5.8 of the Tariff Order dated 16.10.2020 passed in T.A.No.9 of 2020 and also Regulation 7 of the Power procurement from New and Renewable Sources of Energy Regulations, 2008 as contended by the petitioner. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner. In fine, this Commission doth order as follows:~ a)The petitioner is entitled to 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission or in cases where no tariff fixed, 75% of the tariff discovered in the competitive bidding shall be adopted for payment for the energy supplied over and above the limit sanctioned. b)In case any injection has been made by the generator against the direction of SLDC or at any point of time such injection had imperilled the gird security, such cases shall be dealt with separately by the respondent for the purpose of denial of claim. c)Even in such cases, it is only after giving due notice and fair hearing, that payment can be denied. d)In all other cases, payment shall be made at 75% tariff fixed by the Commission. e)Parties shall bear their respective cost.“

6. The relevant clause now sought to be revised is extracted hereunder: “7. Banking The banking is not permitted. The surplus energy if available at the end of billing period will get lapsed. The energy adjustment on slot to slot basis shall be done till such time the DSM is implemented in the state. You are requested to pay tax and duties if any, as and when announced by the Government.“

7. It is quite apparent that the relevant clause in the agreement has to be in line with the order passed by the first respondent. The first respondent has categorically held that the said clause is inconsistent with Clause 5.5.8 of the tariff order dated 16.10.2020.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the TANGEDCO submitted that the Chief Engineer~NCES has taken a different view and therefore, the respondents are not in a position to take any decision.

9. In reply to the above submission, learned counsel for petitioner produced the copy of the communication made by the Superintending Engineer to yet another entity wherein it is seen that after taking note of the order passed by the first respondent in M.P.No.47 of 2021 dated 11.05.2023, the Solar Tariff Order No.9 dated 16.10.2020 and the relevant clause in the agreement, the Chief Engineer~NCES has granted approval through memo dated 11.07.2025. For proper appreciation, the said communication is scanned and reproduced hereunder:

10. In view of the above, the Chief Engineer~NCES has already granted approval in one of the case by following the order passed by the first respondent. Hence, the same yardstick must be applied in the case in hand also. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to revise the relevant clause in the agreement and execute the revised agreement by including Clause 5.5.8 in the tariff order. This process shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such modification, the amount that is liable to be paid to the petitioner shall also be settled within a period of eight

(8) weeks thereafter.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition shall stands disposed of in similar terms with a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to revise the relevant clause in the agreement and execute the revised agreement by including Clause 5.5.8 in the tariff order. This process shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such modification, the amount that is liable to be paid to the petitioner shall also be settled within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter….”

4. Learned Standing counsel for respondents would submit that against the order of TNERC, TANGEDCO has preferred an appeal before APTEL and thus the orders which is now being passed relying upon the orders in the earlier writ petitions may be made subject to the outcome of the appeal pending before APTEL, the same is recorded.

5. In view thereof, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition on similar terms with a direction to respondents 2 to 5 to revise the relevant clause in the agreement by incorporating Clause 5.5.8 in the tariff order. The above process shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of uploading of web copy without waiting for receipt of certified copy of the order. On such modification, any amount that is liable to be paid to the petitioner shall be settled within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter.

6. At this stage, learned standing counsel for respondents would submit that since the appeal is pending before APTEL, this order may be made subject to the outcome of the appeal. It is made clear that for complying with the conditions set out in the previous paragraphs, respondents need not wait for the outcome of APTEL, however, as and when APTEL decides the matter, it shall be open to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition stand disposed of. No costs. 14-10-2026

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rap

P.T.ASHA, J. rap To

1. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, 4th Floor, SIDCO Corporate Office Building, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032,

2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation limited (TNPDCL), 10th Floor, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

3. The Chief Engineer/NCES, Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Ltd, (TNGECL) 2nd Floor, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

4. The Superintending Engineer, TNPDCL, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, Virudhunagar.

14-10-2026