Wheeling agreements must provide 75% compensation for surplus solar energy under the tariff order.

The petitioners sought revision of clauses in their Energy Wheeling Agreements which, they contended, were inconsistent with paragraph 5.5.8 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020.

They sought payment for unutilised surplus solar energy at 75% of the competitively discovered tariff, stated to be ₹3.04 per unit.

The Court was referred to earlier writ orders directing revision of similar agreement clauses in light of the Commission’s order in M.P. No. 47 of 2021, dated 11 May 2023.

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

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to revise the petitioners’ Energy Wheeling Agreement clauses to conform to paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020 and settle amounts payable for surplus energy.

2. Whether compliance with those directions should await the outcome of the appeal pending before APTEL.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue appropriate writs, including mandamus.

Paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020, as considered by the Commission in M.P. No. 47 of 2021, provides for payment for energy supplied over and above the sanctioned limit at 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission or, where no tariff is fixed, at 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding; the Commission also found the inconsistent agreement clause contrary to the tariff order and Regulation 7 of the Power Procurement from New and Renewable Sources of Energy Regulations, 2008.

The Court followed its earlier orders in W.P. No. 31457 of 2025 and W.P. No. 49777 of 2025, which had directed amendment of similar agreements.

The Court treated the issue as covered by its earlier decisions, which had relied on the Commission’s finding that inconsistent agreement terms could not displace the applicable tariff order.

Applying that approach, it directed the respondents to revise the relevant clauses in the petitioners’ agreements and to settle any amount payable after modification.

Although an appeal was pending before APTEL, the Court held that the respondents need not defer compliance; they could proceed in accordance with law after APTEL decides the matter.

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

Compliance is not to await APTEL’s decision, but the authorities may act in accordance with law once that decision is made.

No costs were ordered.