Facts
The petitioner challenged Clause 5(e) of its Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 1 March 2022, seeking its revision to conform with paragraph 5.5.8 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020.
Source reference: p. 1–2It also sought payment for surplus solar energy at 75% of the competitive-bidding tariff, stated to be Rs. 3.04 per unit.
Source reference: p. 1–2The parties submitted that the issue was covered by earlier writ orders directing revision of similar agreements.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3The respondents stated that an appeal against the Commission’s order was pending before APTEL.
Source reference: p. 6–7, paras. 4, 6Issues
Whether the respondents should revise the petitioner’s Energy Wheeling Agreement to incorporate the requirements of paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2; p. 7, para. 5Whether the pending APTEL appeal required the Court to defer directions concerning revision of the agreement and payment
Source reference: p. 6–7, paras. 4, 6Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue appropriate writs, including mandamus.
Source reference: no citationParagraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020, read with the Commission’s order dated 11 May 2023 in M.P. No. 47 of 2021, supports payment for eligible energy supplied over and above the sanctioned limit at 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission or, where no tariff is fixed, 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding.
Source reference: p. 4–5, extracted para. 5The Court also followed its earlier directions in W.P. Nos. 31457 and 49777 of 2025, which applied the same approach to similar agreements.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3; p. 6, para. 3Reasoning
The Court treated the dispute as covered by its earlier writ decisions, which had directed the respondents to bring inconsistent agreement clauses into conformity with the Commission’s tariff order.
Source reference: p. 6–7, paras. 4–6It therefore directed revision of the petitioner’s agreement on the same terms.
Source reference: p. 6–7, paras. 4–6Although an appeal was pending before APTEL, the Court held that the respondents need not await its outcome to comply with the directions; they could proceed in accordance with law after APTEL decided the matter.
Source reference: p. 6–7, paras. 4–6Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition and directed respondents 2 to 4 to revise the relevant agreement clause by incorporating paragraph 5.5.8 of the tariff order within six weeks from uploading of the web copy.
Any amount payable to the petitioner was to be settled within eight weeks after the modification.
Source reference: p. 7, paras. 5–7Compliance was not to be deferred pending the APTEL appeal, without prejudice to the authorities’ ability to act in accordance with law after that appeal is decided.
Source reference: p. 7, paras. 5–7No costs were awarded.
Source reference: p. 7, paras. 5–7Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020 dated 16.10.20201
Original Court PDF
M/s.Majestic ExportsvsTAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
