Facts
The petitioner sought revision of the Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 27 April 2026 for its solar power generator, SPG No. 079514720120, to align its surplus-energy provision with paragraph 5.5.8 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020.
Source reference: p.1; p.2, para. 2It also sought payment for unutilised surplus energy at 75% of the competitively discovered tariff, stated as ₹3.04 per unit, from 19 November 2025 onwards.
Source reference: p.1; p.2, para. 2The parties accepted that the issue was covered by earlier High Court orders directing revision of similar agreements in light of the Commission’s decision in M.P. No. 47 of 2021, which had found a conflicting agreement clause inconsistent with the tariff order and the applicable renewable-energy regulations. The respondents submitted that an appeal against the Commission’s order was pending before APTEL.
Source reference: pp.3–6, para. 3; p.6, para. 4Issues
Whether the respondents should be directed to revise the petitioner’s Energy Wheeling Agreement to incorporate the requirements of paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020 and settle any resulting amount payable for surplus energy.
Source reference: pp.1–2, para. 2; p.7, para. 5Whether compliance with that direction should await the outcome of the appeal pending before APTEL.
Source reference: pp.6–7, paras. 4, 6Law Applied
Paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020, dated 16 October 2020, governed payment for surplus solar energy.
Source reference: pp.4–5, para. 3In M.P. No. 47 of 2021, the Commission held that a contrary Energy Wheeling Agreement clause was inconsistent with that tariff provision and Regulation 7 of the Power Procurement from New and Renewable Sources of Energy Regulations, 2008; it directed payment at 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission or, where no tariff had been fixed, 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding, subject to the stated exception for injections contrary to SLDC directions or endangering grid security and the requirement of notice and a fair hearing before denial of payment.
Source reference: pp.4–5, para. 3The Court followed its earlier orders granting similar relief, while clarifying that compliance need not await the pending APTEL appeal.
Source reference: pp.3–6, para. 3; p.7, para. 6Reasoning
The Court treated the dispute as governed by its earlier decisions on materially similar agreements and by the Commission’s determination that a conflicting agreement term could not prevail over paragraph 5.5.8 of the tariff order.
Source reference: pp.3–7, paras. 3–6It therefore directed revision of the petitioner’s agreement and payment of any amount found payable under the applicable tariff framework.
Source reference: pp.3–7, paras. 3–6Although the respondents identified a pending APTEL appeal, the Court held that this did not suspend compliance with its directions; the authorities could proceed in accordance with law after APTEL decided the matter.
Source reference: pp.3–7, paras. 3–6Holding
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to revise the relevant agreement clause by incorporating paragraph 5.5.8 of the tariff order within six weeks from the date the web copy of the order was uploaded.
Any amount payable following the modification was to be settled within eight weeks thereafter.
Source reference: p.7, para. 5The respondents were not required to await APTEL’s decision, but could act in accordance with law once that decision was delivered.
Source reference: p.7, para. 6No costs were awarded.
Source reference: p.7, para. 7Original Court PDF
M/s.Remo Solar Farms pvt LtdvsTamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory commission
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
