(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd to 4Th respondent to revise clause D(3) page No. 9 of the energy wheeling agreement dated 29.12.2023 completely in line and consistent with para 5.5.8 of the Solar Tariff order No. 9/2020 dated 16.10.2020 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the 4th respondent ato accept the invoices of the petitioner whenever raised for the encashment of the unutilized surplus solar energy available at their account at the end of each month at 75 percentage of tariff discovered in the competitive bidding which is Rs. 3.04 and to effect the payment within the due dates as provided in the order No. 9/2020 dated 16.10.2020.)

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing Respondents 2 to 5 to revise the Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 29.12.2023 completely in line and consistent with Para 5.5.8 of the Solar Tariff order No. 9/2020 dated 16.10.2020 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the 4th respondent to accept the invoices of the petitioner whenever raised for the encashment of the unutilized surplus solar energy available at their account at the end of each month at 75 percentage of tariff discovered in the competitive bidding which is Rs. 3.04 and to effect the payment within the due dates as provided in the order No. 9/2020 dated 16.10.2020.

2. Heard Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.D.R.Arunkumar, learned Standing counsel for respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that they are having the high tension service connection under the jurisdiction of the fifth respondent. The petitioner made an application to the second respondent for arrangement of 5 MW Solar Power Plant. The petitioner was directed to pay the applicable charges besides the refundable security deposit. The second respondent also issued "Noted for Record" letter to the petitioner directing the Solar Power Plant to be commissioned and synchronised in the grid belonging to the respondents. The petitioner also satisfactorily commissioned the plant and the same was also certified by the respondents.

4. Under instructions from the second respondent, the third respondent had sent a letter enclosing Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 29.12.2023. On perusal of the agreement, it was found that it contained clauses contrary to the tariff order passed by the first respondent commission in order No.9/20 dated 16.10.2020. As a result, the second respondent restricted the petitioner from raising invoices for the unutilized excess solar energy whenever available after consumption during the month. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court.

5. It is relevant to take note of the order passed by the first respondent in M.P.No.47 of 2021 dated 11.05.2023. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

               "6.Finding of the Commission on the first issue: In view of the findings rendered by this Commission on issue no.2 to 5, the only irresistible conclusion that can be arrived at on this issue is that clause 24(IV) of the Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 03.03.2021 is inconsistent with clause 5.5.8 of the Tariff Order dated 16.10.2020 passed in T.A.No.9 of 2020 and also Regulation 7 of the Power procurement from New and Renewable Sources of Energy Regulations, 2008 as contended by the petitioner. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

In fine, this Commission doth order as follows:-

               a) The petitioner is entitled to 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission or in cases where no tariff fixed, 75% of the tariff discovered in the competitive bidding shall be adopted for payment for the energy supplied over and above the limit sanctioned.

               b) In case any injection has been made by the generator against the direction of SLDC or at any point of time such injection had imperiled the gird security, such cases shall be dealt with separately by the respondent for the purpose of denial of claim.

               c) Even in such cases, it is only after giving due notice and fair hearing, that payment can be denied.

               d) In all other cases, payment shall be made at 75% tariff fixed by the Commission.

               e) Parties shall bear their respective cost."

6. The relevant clause now sought to be revised is extracted hereunder:

               "7. Banking

               The banking is not permitted. The surplus energy if available at the end of billing period will get lapsed. The energy adjustment on slot to slot basis shall be done till such time the DSM is implemented in the state. You are requested to pay tax and duties if any, as and when announced by the Government."

7. It is quite apparent that the relevant clause in the agreement has to be in line with the order passed by the first respondent. The first respondent has categorically held that the said clause is inconsistent with Clause 5.5.8 of the tariff order dated 16.10.2020.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the TANGEDCO submitted that TANGEDCO has filed an appeal against the order of TNERC before APTEL and the same is pending in DFR No.262 of 2025.

9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the TANGEDCO further submitted that the Chief Engineer-NCES has taken a different view and therefore, the respondents are not in a position to take any decision.

10. In reply to the above submission, learned counsel for petitioner produced the copy of the communication made by the Superintending Engineer to yet another entity wherein it is seen that after taking note of the order passed by the first respondent in M.P.No.47 of 2021 dated 11.05.2023, the Solar Tariff Order No.9 dated 16.10.2020 and the relevant clause in the agreement, the Chief Engineer-NCES has granted approval through memo dated 11.07.2025. For proper appreciation, the said communication is scanned and reproduced hereunder:



11. In view of the above, the Chief Engineer-NCES has already granted approval in one of the case by following the order passed by the first respondent. Hence, the same yardstick must be applied in the case in hand also. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents 2 to 5 to revise the relevant clause in the agreement and execute the revised agreement by including Clause 5.5.8 in the tariff order. This process shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such modification, the amount that is liable to be paid to the petitioner shall also be settled within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter.

12. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.