High Court · 2025

W.P.No.15959 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P.No.15959 of 2025andWMP.Nos.18055, 18056 & 18058 of 2025Hyundai Motor India LimitedPlot No.H1, SIPCOT Industrial ParkIrrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur TalukKacheepuram District 602 117.... PetitionerVs.1.Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Limited TNGECL 144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.2.Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited TNPDCL 144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.3.The Chief Financial Controller/Revenue (FAC) NPKRR Maligai 144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15959 of 20254.The Superintending Engineer Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle TANGEDCO, Kancheepuram. ...RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent in its impugned instructions dated 03.04.2025 bearing reference Ref.No.CFC/REV/FC/REV/AO/REV/D.239/2025 and the Current Consumption Bills for the petitioner's HTSC.No.099094100476 (previous Service No.099094110277) for the period from March 2022 to March 2025, insofar as the levy of Network charges is concerned, and quash the same as being arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and consequently direct refund of Network Charges already collected along with interest and forbear the respondents from levying network charges in future CC Bills, in compliance with the judgment dated 22.12.2024 of this Court in W.P.No.22000 of 2022 & batch. For Petitioner: Mr.Rahul BalajiFor Respondents: Mr.D.R.Arunkumar (TNPDCL)2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15959 of 2025ORDERThis 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/D.239/2025 dated 03.04.2022, 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 issued by the respondent authorities stood quashed, on account of which, the impugned order has to go automatically. 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15959 of 20253. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 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 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15959 of 2025by the respondents to 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 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15959 of 2025State/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 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.’6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15959 of 202553. Notwithstanding the statutory responsibility casts on the respondents, I believe that they have already 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. 30.04.2025Neutral Citation : No dna7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15959 of 2025To 1.Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Limited TNGECL 144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.2.Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited TNPDCL 144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.3.The Chief Financial Controller/Revenue (FAC) NPKRR Maligai 144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.4.The Superintending Engineer Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle TANGEDCO, Kancheepuram. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15959 of 2025D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J. dnaW.P.No.15959 of 2025andWMP.Nos.18055, 18056 & 18058 of 202530.04.20259/9