Utilities must revise wheeling agreements to provide tariff-ordered compensation for surplus solar energy.

Sri Krishna Textiles sought revision of Clause 21(e) of its Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 1 September 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.

The parties submitted that the issue was covered by earlier writ orders directing revision of similar agreement clauses in accordance with paragraph 5.5.8.

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

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

2. Whether payment due for unutilised surplus solar energy should be made following the revised agreement, notwithstanding the pending APTEL appeal.

Paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No.9 of 2020 governs payment for surplus energy and provides for payment at 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission, or, where no tariff has been fixed, 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding.

In M.P.No.47 of 2021, the Commission held that an inconsistent agreement clause could not displace that tariff-order entitlement and that payment could be denied in specified circumstances only after notice and a fair hearing.

The Court also followed its prior writ decisions directing amendment of inconsistent agreement clauses to reflect the tariff order.

The pending APTEL appeal did not require the respondents to delay compliance, though they could act in accordance with law after APTEL decided the matter.

The parties accepted that the dispute was covered by prior writ decisions applying paragraph 5.5.8 and requiring the relevant agreement clause to be revised.

Following those decisions, the Court directed the respondents to amend the petitioner’s agreement accordingly.

Although the respondents referred to the pending APTEL appeal, the Court held that compliance should proceed without awaiting its outcome; the authorities could thereafter act in accordance with law in light of APTEL’s decision.

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

Compliance was not to await the APTEL decision, without prejudice to the authorities’ ability to act in accordance with law after that decision.

No order as to costs.