Madras HC Orders TNPDCL To Unseal Captive Solar Plant Sealed Without Notice, Says Personal-Use Generation Requires Intimation, Not Approval

The petitioner operated a 1 MW rooftop solar plant at its manufacturing unit for captive consumption. It contended that the plant was on the internal load side, protected against reverse power flow, and neither injected energy into nor received credits from the grid.

On 28 September 2026, the respondents inspected the premises and sealed the Air Circuit Breaker’s spring-charging handle, stopping the plant.

The petitioner’s representations seeking removal of the seal were followed by a show-cause notice demanding parallel-operation/network charges, later revised to Rs.94,88,539.

The petitioner sought a direction to remove the seal and permit the plant to operate.

The Court referred to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission regulations framed under Sections 61(h), 86(1)(e) and 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Regulation 8.14 provides that a grid-connected renewable energy generating system behind the consumer’s meter, where the consumer has not opted for net metering or net billing, may be allowed upon prior intimation to the distribution licensee.

Regulation 8.5 permits disconnection where a grid-interactive solar PV system is found operating in parallel with the distribution licensee’s supply system without approval, subject to three days’ notice; restoration follows isolation of the plant from the licensee’s supply system.

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard before the impugned action.

The Court read Regulations 8.14 and 8.5 as distinguishing a plant operating behind the consumer’s meter for personal consumption from an unauthorised plant running in parallel with the distribution system.

It understood the regulations to require prior intimation, rather than prior approval, for the former.

The Board had not given the petitioner notice or a hearing before sealing the plant, and it was already aware of the plant’s existence; the Court also noted that a similar sealing in 2021 had been reversed and operation permitted.

In those circumstances, the sealing was contrary to natural justice, while the alleged connection to the grid could be examined through a subsequent joint inspection.

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.