[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
No.2 vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory ... on 21 January, 2026
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
WP No.30485 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.P.No.30485 of 2025
and W.M.P.No.34171 of 2025
Renewable Energy Producers Association
Rep.No.Srg/ Dindugul/131/2024,
No.2, Karur Road, Modern Nagar,
Dindigul-624 001.
Rep. By Its Chief Advisor Cum CEO
Dr.K.Venkatachalam
..Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission
4th Floor, Sidco Corporate Office Building,
Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032
Rep. By Its Secretary
2.Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TNPDCL),
144, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002,
Rep. By Its Chairman And Managing Director.
3.Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TNPDCL),
144, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002,
Rep. By Its Joint Managing Director, Finance.
4.The Chief Financial Controller / Revenue (TNPDCL),
7th Floor, 144, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002,
... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:15:33 pm )
WP No.30485 of 2025
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent
TNERC, to return back all the miscellaneous petitions to the respondents
pertaining to the members of the petitioner Association, which are being
adjudicated now and directing further the 1st respondent, to seek such
petitions, relevant for the purpose of Verification of CGP status by dispute
Resolution Petitions, once the Draft 2024 Regulation now pending is
culminated in to a final Regulation for the Verification of CGP status and
notified in the TN Government Gazette for enforcement in the State as per
the requirements of section 181(3) of the Elementary Act 2003.
For Petitioner : Mr.Rahul Balaji
for Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj
For Respondent-1 : Ms.Dhakshayani Reddy,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.G.Adithyaraj
For Respondents 2 to 4 : Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.D.R.Arunkumar,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
“To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st
respondent TNERC, to return back all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:15:33 pm )
miscellaneous petitions to the respondents pertaining
to the members of the petitioner Association, which
are being adjudicated now and directing further the 1st
respondent, to seek petitions, relevant for the purpose
of Verification of CGP status by dispute Resolution
Petitions, once the Draft 2024 Regulation now
pending is culminated in to a final Regulation for the
Verification of CGP status and notified in the TN
Government Gazette for enforcement in the State as
per the requirements of section 181(3) of the
Elementary Act 2003.
2. In paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent,
it has been stated as follows:
“20. As regards para 28 & 33 and Ground F, S, T, U,
V, W, X & Y of the affidavit it is submitted that the
apprehension that the petitions may be adjudicated is a mere
conjecture and has no factual basis. Even going by the
factual happenings, the very decision of the Commission to
adjourn these cases sine die for want of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:15:33 pm )
guideline disproves the stand of the petitioner that there is a
possibility of adjudication in each case. It is submitted that
the factual position is that the answering respondent does
not intend to proceed with individual petitions until broader
guidelines are put in place by way of regulation but the
petitioner seeks to distort the factual happenings to subserve
its interests. The averment of the petitioner that the petitions
have been considered in a perfunctory manner is denied.
The acceptance of petitions is mandatory unless the same
has been filed otherwise than in accordance with the
Conduct of Business Regulations 2004 or Fees & Fines
Regulations 2004. No petition can be rejected solely on the
ground of maintainability unless fair opportunity is afforded
to both sides on maintainability. The stand that no cause of
action exists for the petition filed by TANGEDCO is not
correct for the reason that APTEL has granted liberty to the
TANGEDCO to proceed with the available materials in
regard to past cases in para 9.5.24 of its judgment in A.No.
131 of 2021.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:15:33 pm )
3. Recording the above, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is needless to
state that considering the fact that the draft regulations have been framed as
early in the year 2023 and circulated, the 1 st respondent shall expeditiously
notify the regulations after following the due process of law.
21.01.2026
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
srn
To
1. The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission
4th Floor, Sidco Corporate Office Building,
Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032
2. The Chairman And Managing Director.
Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TNPDCL),
144, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002,
3. The Joint Managing Director, Finance.
Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TNPDCL),
144, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002,
4. The Chief Financial Controller / Revenue (TNPDCL),
7th Floor, 144, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:15:33 pm )
P.T. ASHA, J,
srn
21.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:15:33 pm )
