Pending appeal does not suspend the duty to align wheeling agreements with tariff orders.

The petitioner sought revision of page 6 of its Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 30 March 2026, concerning SPG No. 029534170012, to align it 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 from 19 November 2025 at 75% of the competitively discovered tariff, stated to be ₹3.04 per unit.

Both sides submitted that the issue was covered by earlier writ orders directing amendment of similar agreements in line with paragraph 5.5.8.

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

1. 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.

2. Whether payment due for the petitioner’s unutilised 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 directions to public authorities.

Paragraph 5.5.8 of TNERC Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020, read with the Commission’s order in M.P. No. 47 of 2021 dated 11 May 2023, supports payment for eligible energy supplied over and above the sanctioned limit at 75% of the Commission-fixed tariff or, where no tariff is fixed, 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding; the Commission had also held that the inconsistent agreement clause could not govern such payment.

The Court followed its earlier decisions in W.P. Nos. 31457 of 2025 and 49777 of 2025, which applied that principle to require amendment of similar agreements.

The Court accepted the parties’ submission that the petitioner’s claim was covered by the earlier writ decisions, which had required the relevant agreements to be brought into conformity with paragraph 5.5.8.

Although the respondents pointed to a pending APTEL appeal, the Court held that compliance with its directions need not await that appeal.

It preserved the authorities’ ability to act in accordance with law after APTEL decides the matter.

Any amount found payable to the petitioner is to be settled within eight weeks thereafter.

Compliance need not await the APTEL decision, but the authorities may proceed in accordance with law once that decision is delivered.

No costs were awarded.