Madras High Court
Renewable Energy Producers ... vs Tamilnadu Power Distribution on 2 April, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No.11841 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.11841 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos. 13400, 13402 & 13405 of 2025
RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION,
(REGN.NO.131/2024),
#2, KARUR ROAD, MODERN NAGAR,
DINDIGUL-624 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR - LEGAL,
V.BHARATHIKANNAN. ... Petitioner
Vs
1. TAMILNADU POWER DISTRIBUTION
CORPORATION LTD (TNPDCL),
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
144, ANNA SALAI,
CHENNAI-600 002.
2. THE CHIEF FINANCIAL CONTROLLER-REVENUE
TNPDCL,
144, ANNA SALAI,
CHENNAI - 600 002. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
second respondent comprised in Lr.No.CFC/REV/FC/REV/AO/
REV/F.Network charges/D.294/22 dated 04.04.2022 towards the levy of
network charges insofar as the matter of levy of network charges for the
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 02:58:14 pm )
W.P.No.11841 of 2025
members of the petitioner's Association are concerned and quash the same as
being unfair, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of provisions of the
Electricity Act 2003, Electricity (Rights of Consumers) Rules 2021 and
consequently direct the respondents not to levy the network charges on the
member industries of the petitioner's Association and further direct the
respondents to refund/adjust the network charges illegally collected from the
member industries of the petitioner's Association.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Parthasarathy
For R1 & R2 : Dr.D.R.Arunkumar (TNPDCL)
ORDER
This writ petition is filed with a prayer to call for the records on the file
of the second respondent, comprised in Lr.No.CFC/REV/FC/REV/AO/REV/F,
towards the levy of network charges, insofar as the matter of the levy of
network charges for the members of the petitioner’s Association is concerned,
as violative of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Rules
thereunder.
2. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner would submit that this matter is no longer res integra. A
batch of similar matters has already been considered by this Court in W.P. No.
22000 of 2022, etc., and by judgment dated 22.12.2024, the circular that was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 02:58:14 pm )
issued by the respondent authorities should be quashed. On account of which,
the impugned order has to go automatically.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent TANGEDCO
would submit that they have received the order only recently and they are
aggrieved by this order and are preferring a writ appeal against the said order.
4. Be that as it may, the same can be followed in this case also. When
this Court had considered the very same issue and passed an order in favor of
the petitioner, I am inclined to follow the said order. As a matter of fact, it is
relevant to extract the following portion of the order dated 22.12.2024:-
“47. As the respondents point out, there is,
undoubtedly, a connection to the grid through the
Discom, as may be seen from the diagram provided. In
my understanding, the Discom is an indispensable feature
in the mechanism forgeneration of electricity as, without
that feature, or its equivalent, it would be possible to use
the power generated, captively. The feature essentially
provides the facility of converting raw power to power in
a form that is usable by the consumer and is a facility
necessary for any captive generator to possess in order to
use/deploy the power captively generated. However, this
would not, in my view, lead to the conclusion that there is
an enabling facility provided by the respondents to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 02:58:14 pm )
warrant an unanticipated charge, that too, one already
passed on.
48. The argument advanced by the State is that
such a feature, a Discom or equivalent thereof, could well
have been obtained by the generator themselves, and
having not done so, would expose them to the charges.
The cost of a Discom is stated to be prohibitively high
and the petitioners submit that this would beyond their
means.
49. This issue also be seen in the context of the
object and reason why the State had promoted solar
power in the first place. It is the vagaries of conventional
sources of power that had prompted the State to
encourage persons/industries to explore alternate sources
of power. Thus, having encouraged them to explore
alternate power sources the State cannot impose an
unfair burden on them for so complying.
50. The Respondents have taken pains to illustrate
the substantial expenditure incurred by them to put in
place the infrastructure for transmission of power as well
as various additional responsibilities and costs. This may
well be so. While the budgeting of expenditure is certainly
a matter of importance and the State/Respondents cannot
be faceted at a policy level, to expect the consumers to
share the same, this is a case where the Tariff Order and
Regulations referred to above would conclusively
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 02:58:14 pm )
establish that such expenditure has, in fact, been factored
into the determination of tariff as a hidden cost. The
respondents have failed in their attempt to seek
modification of the Tariff Order, and the order in the
Miscellaneous Petition as well as subsequent proposals
(in draft form) clearly establish this position.
51. Hence, there is no sanctity in the impugned
demands. If at all the respondents believed that there
should have been an additional component of cost, then
the proposal should have been made and finalized in a
transparent manner enablishing the petitioners to take an
informed decision as to whether they are interested in
exploring the solar policy at all. This was never done.
52. Moreover Section 86(1)€ of the Electricity Act,
2003 states that ‘The State Commission shall promote
cogeneration and generation of electricity from
renewable sources of energy by providing suitable
measures for connectivity with the grid and sale of
electricity to any person, and also specify, for purchase of
electricity from such sources, a percentage of the total
consumption of electricity in the area of a distribution
licensee.’
53. Notwithstanding the statutory responsibility
casts on the respondents, I believe that they have already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 02:58:14 pm )
enriched themselves to the extent of costs that have been
passed on to the petitioners as part of the tariff. To do so,
once more by way of the impugned additional demands
would thus contrary to not just the spirit of the State
Policy and vision but the Regulations and the statutory
directives as well.
54. In such circumstances I have no hesitation in
setting aside the impugned demands and allowing these
writ petitions and I do so. Connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed. No costs.”
5. In view thereof, this writ petition is also disposed of on the same
terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
02.04.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsl
To
1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 02:58:14 pm )
TAMILNADU POWER DISTRIBUTION
CORPORATION LTD (TNPDCL),
144, ANNA SALAI,
CHENNAI-600 002.
2. THE CHIEF FINANCIAL CONTROLLER-REVENUE
TNPDCL,
144, ANNA SALAI,
CHENNAI - 600 002.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 02:58:14 pm )
nsl
02.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 02:58:14 pm )
