Energy wheeling agreements must incorporate tariff-order provisions governing payment for surplus solar energy.

Sri Krishna Textiles sought revision of clause 21(e) of its Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 28 August 2025, contending that it conflicted 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 submitted that the issue was covered by earlier writ orders directing revision of inconsistent agreement clauses. The respondents’ Standing Counsel stated that an appeal against the Commission’s order was pending before APTEL.

Whether the respondents should be directed to revise the relevant clause of the petitioner’s Energy Wheeling Agreement to conform to paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020.

Whether compliance with that direction should await the outcome of the appeal pending before APTEL.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue appropriate directions, including mandamus. Paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020 governed payment for surplus solar energy; the Commission, in M.P. No. 47 of 2021, had held an inconsistent wheeling-agreement clause contrary to the Tariff Order and stated that, in applicable cases, payment was to be made at 75% of the Commission-fixed tariff or, where no tariff was fixed, 75% of the competitively discovered tariff.

The Court relied on its earlier writ orders applying that approach and directing revision of inconsistent agreement terms.

The Court treated the petitioner’s dispute as covered by the earlier writ decisions, which had directed amendment of wheeling-agreement clauses to reflect paragraph 5.5.8 of the Tariff Order. It therefore directed the respondents to revise the relevant clause in the petitioner’s agreement on the same basis.

Although the respondents relied on the pending APTEL appeal, the Court held that the amendment and consequential payment need not await its outcome; the authorities could proceed in accordance with law after APTEL decided the matter.

Compliance was not to be deferred pending the APTEL appeal, but the authorities could act in accordance with law following its decision. No order as to costs was made.