01Facts
The petitioner, successor through amalgamation to five solar-power companies, raised four supplementary invoices totalling ₹212,21,17,566 for late-payment surcharge, applying the payment-appropriation approach adopted by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) in a dispute concerning another amalgamated company.
pp. 5–8 · ¶ 5–9TNPDCL returned the invoices and later objected to their processing on the PRAAPTI portal.
pp. 5–8 · ¶ 5–9The TNERC order concerning the other company was under appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), which had made an interim order in that separate matter.
pp. 5–8 · ¶ 5–9The petitioner sought to quash TNPDCL’s objection and obtain directions for processing the four invoices, including payment of 50% by analogy with the APTEL’s interim order.
pp. 5–8 · ¶ 5–902Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner could obtain writ relief directing processing or payment of the four supplementary invoices when it had not first raised those invoice disputes before the TNERC and an efficacious alternative remedy was available
p. 17 · ¶ 23ii.2. Whether the TNERC’s order and the APTEL’s interim direction in the dispute concerning another invoice could be treated as binding or extended to these four invoices
pp. 17–18 · ¶ 23–26iii.3. Whether the writ court could direct payment of 50% of the four invoices despite disputed factual questions concerning payment communications, reconciliation, and closure of accounts
p. 18 · ¶ 25–2603Law Applied
Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with the dispute-resolution provisions of the Energy Purchase Agreements, provides a forum before the TNERC for disputes between the parties concerning the invoices.
p. 14, 17 · ¶ 19, 23The Electricity (Late Payment Surcharge and Related Matters) Rules, 2022, including Rules 4 and 10, were invoked by the petitioner as prescribing the appropriation of payments first towards late-payment surcharge and then towards the oldest outstanding bill; however, the Court did not decide their substantive application to these invoices.
p. 9, 17 · ¶ 12, 17, 23–27The Court’s decision applied the principles that an available efficacious alternative remedy may be pursued before seeking writ relief, that an interim order made on the circumstances of one dispute does not by itself establish a settled legal position or automatically govern other claims, and that disputed factual matters require adjudication in the appropriate forum.
pp. 17–18 · ¶ 23–26Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Electricity Act, 2003 Section 86
04Reasoning
The Court held that the petitioner had not approached the TNERC regarding the four invoices and could seek relief there, making that remedy available in the circumstances.
p. 17 · ¶ 23It rejected the argument that the TNERC’s decision in the separate company’s dispute settled the issue for all invoices: that decision was under appeal, and the APTEL’s 50% payment direction was interim and specific to that dispute, not a final determination capable of automatic extension.
pp. 17–18 · ¶ 23–26The Court also found that questions about communications accompanying payments, prior reconciliation, and whether the accounts had been closed required factual consideration in relation to these claims.
p. 18 · ¶ 25It therefore declined to direct payment or processing on the basis of the separate interim order.
pp. 18–19 · ¶ 26–2705Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, declining to direct payment of 50% of the four supplementary invoices or to extend the APTEL’s interim order to them.
p. 19 · ¶ 27It granted the petitioner liberty to approach the TNERC concerning those invoices; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
p. 19 · ¶ 27Original Court PDF
Adani Green Energy Twenty Three Limited (AGE23L),vsTamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
