Electricity distributors must align wheeling agreements with the tariff order despite a pending appeal.

The petitioner sought revision of its Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 28 August 2023 to conform with paragraph 5.5.8 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020.

It also sought payment for unutilised surplus solar energy at 75% of the competitively discovered tariff, stated to be Rs. 3.04 per unit

The parties accepted that the issue was covered by earlier decisions of the Court in W.P. Nos. 31457 of 2025 and 49777 of 2025, which had directed revision of similar agreements.

The respondents stated that an appeal against the Commission’s order was pending before APTEL.

Whether respondents 2 to 4 should revise the petitioner’s Energy Wheeling Agreement to incorporate paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020

Whether payment due for surplus solar energy should be made following that revision, notwithstanding the pending APTEL appeal

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus.

Paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020, as addressed in the Commission’s order in M.P. No. 47 of 2021, entitles a generator to payment for energy supplied over the sanctioned limit at 75% of the Commission-fixed tariff or, where no tariff has been fixed, 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding; denial may arise in specified grid-security or direction-related circumstances, subject to notice and a fair hearing

The Court followed its earlier decisions directing revision of similar agreements to reflect that tariff-order provision

The Court treated the issue as covered by its earlier decisions, which had required respondents to revise inconsistent agreement clauses in line with paragraph 5.5.8 of the tariff order.

Although the respondents submitted that an appeal was pending before APTEL, the Court held that compliance with its directions need not await the appeal’s outcome; it preserved the authorities’ ability to proceed in accordance with law after APTEL decides the matter

Any amount payable to the petitioner is to be settled within eight weeks after the modification.

Compliance is not to be deferred pending the APTEL appeal, but the authorities may proceed in accordance with law once that appeal is decided.

No costs were ordered