M/S. Trisshanth Green Energy Pvt. Ltd., v. The Tamil Nadu Power Distribution (WP 21524/2026) | Full Judgment, Madras High Court, 2026

Court: High Court of Madras
Decided: 19 August 2026
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthyauthor
Case no.: WP 21524/2026

Official PDF Read full judgment Save Report an error

Follow Madras High Court Follow D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.08.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.Nos.21524, 20949, 22706, 23103, 23108, 23431, 23445, 23677, 24252, 25017, 25022, 26471, 26495, 26502, 26775, 26784, 29131, 29134, 29143, 29155, 29160, 29166, 29297, 29302, 29304, 30095, 30102, 30292, 30295, 31177, 31183 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.22659, 22660, 22661, 23297, 23300, 23302, 24629, 24630, 24632, 25035, 25036, 25037, 25040, 25039, 25030, 25422, 25423, 25395, 25401, 25403, 25420, 25640, 25641, 25642, 26407, 26411, 26406, 27291, 27293, 27297, 27308, 27309, 27323, 28950, 28952, 28953, 28980, 28984, 28985, 28993, 28994, 28996, 29290, 29291, 29297, 29303, 29304, 29305, 31985, 31987, 31972, 31975, 31976, 31984, 31963, 31964, 31965, 32018, 32025, 32026, 32027, 32008, 32011, 32012, 32015, 32017, 32191, 32194, 32195, 32189, 32190, 32180, 32182, 32184, 32196, 33071, 33072, 33074, 33081, 33082, 33083, 33256, 33248, 33250, 33253, 33255, 33247, 34277, 34278, 34281, 34285, 34286, 34287 of 2026 W.P.No.21524 of 2026 M/s.Trisshanth Green Energy Pvt. Ltd., No. 3/23-1, 2nd Cross, Annamalai Street, Vadivel Nagar, Karur - 639 002 repd. by its Authorized Signatory, N.Tirupathi Swamy ... Petitioner Vs

¶1The Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL), 10th Floor, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶2The Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Ltd., (TNGECL), 10th Floor, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Represented by its Managing Director,

¶3The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., (TANTRANSCO), 6th Floor, TANTRANSCO Building, 10th Floor, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Represented by its Managing Director.

¶4The Director/Technical, The Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Ltd., (TNGECL), 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶5The Chief Engineer/NCES (FAC), The Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Ltd., (TNGECL), 10th Floor, Western Wing, NPKKR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶6The Superintending Engineer, TNPDCL, Karur Electricity Distribution Circle, Karur. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 5th Respondent impugned notice bearing Lr.No.CE/NCES/SE/Solar/EE/SCB/ F.Instruction/D.2495/26 dated 27.05.2026 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Electricity Act, 2003 and consequently direct the 2nd to 5th Respondent to permit the Petitioner to commission and energise the petitioner's 3 MW Solar Power Plant through the newly proposed Thalapathy 110/33 SS 11KV level as per the 4th respondent's noted for record letter dated

21.04.2026. For Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.P.Parthasarathy For Respondents : Mr.Vijay Narayanan Advocate General for Mr.D.R.Arunkumar, Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER The grievances in these writ petitions are identical and as such, are taken up and disposed of by this common order.

¶2The following tabular column depicts the particulars of the name of the petitioner, the intended megawatt, the date of the impugned order, the writ petition number, the interim order that is passed and the present status. While the first tabular column is with reference to the individual units, the second tabular column depicts the units with reference to the establishment of substations. LIST OF SOLAR PLANTS WHICH WERE KEPT IN ABEYANCE AND SEEKING A 6-

MONTH EXTENSION FROM THE CUT-OFF DATE MENTIONED IN THE NOTED FOR

RECORD LETTER

¶1Trisshanth Green Energy

27.05.2026 21524/2026

09.06.2026 Project work has been halted due to the Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing any reasons. Therefore, the Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶2Aurea Solar Pvt Ltd.,

30.05.2026 23445/2026

19.06.2026 Project work has been halted due to the Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing any reasons. Therefore, the Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶3Tamilselvan Traders

27.05.2026 23431/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶4Thirumurugan Solutions

30.05.2026 25017/2026

01.07.2026 Project work has been halted due to the Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing any reasons. Therefore, the Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶5Sree Jayaganapathy Green Energy

27.05.2026 25022/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶6Sree Kumaraa Green Energy

29.05.2026 26471/2026

09.07.2026 Project work has been halted due to the Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing any reasons. Therefore, the Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶7SR Green Power

27.05.2026 26495/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶8Mayil Solar Energy

30.05.2026 26502/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶9Greendeer Power P.Ltd

3.25

29.05.2026 29297/2026

27.07.2026 Project work has been halted due to the Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing any reasons. Therefore, the Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶10Zolson Energy P.Ltd.,

8.5

29.05.2026 29302/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶11Parithi Powers India P.Ltd.,

4.5

29.05.2026 29304/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶12Malar Sakthi Green Energy Pvt Ltd.,

27.05.2026 30292/2026

30.07.2026 Project work has been halted due to the Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing any reasons. Therefore, the Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶13Maanjolai Green Energy Pvt Ltd.,

27.05.2026 30295/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶14Vee Tree Green Energy Pvt Ltd.,

30.05.2026 29155/2026

24.07.2026 Project work has been halted due to the Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing any reasons. Therefore, the Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶15MAG Renewable Energy

4.75

30.05.2026 29160/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶16CR Green Energy Pvt Ltd.,

30.05.2026 29166/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶17Sri Thirumalai Balaji Spinning Mills

29.05.2026 29131/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶18Sangeetha Green Energy

29.05.2026 29134/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶19Imayam Green Energy

3.25

29.05.2026 29143/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶20Sangeetha Solar Power

27.05.2026 30095/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶21Akilan Future Sakthi Pvt Ltd.,

6.25

29.05.2026 30102/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶22RJ Sun Energy P.Ltd.,

29.05.2026 26775/2026

10.07.2026 Project work has been halted due to the Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing any reasons. Therefore, the Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶23Vayusol Green Energy

29.05.2026 26784/2026

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶24Chona Energy

27.05.2026 24252/2026

25.06.2026 The Petitioner prayed for a direction to the Respondents to issue the NFR and, consequently, energise the Petitioner's 1 MW SPG. NFR has been issued on 07.08.2026. Therefore,

Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶25Sri Visthara Renewables

30.05.2026 23103/2026

18.06.2026 Project work has been halted due to the Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing any reasons. Therefore, the Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges.

¶26Velavan Solar Energy

30.05.2026 23108/2026

17.06.2026 Project work has been halted due to the Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing any reasons. Therefore, the Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in

NFR

for commissioning the plant, without

penal charges. LIST III - LIST OF DEVELOPERS ESTABLSHING 10(1) SUB-STATIONS WHICH WERE KEPT IN ABEYANCE AND SEEKING A 6-MONTH EXTENSION FROM THE CUT-OFF DATE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD LETTER

¶1Aaran Renewable Energy

23.05.2026 20949/2026

04.06.2026 Project work has been halted due to

Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing

reasons. Therefore,

Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in the Award Letter for commissioning the plant, without any penal charges.

¶2Leap Green Energy

23.05.2026 31177/2026 NIL Project work has been halted due to

Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing

reasons. Therefore,

Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in the Award Letter for commissioning the plant, without any penal charges.

¶3Leap Green Energy

23.05.2026 31183/2026 NIL Project work has been halted due to

Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing

reasons. Therefore,

Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in the Award Letter for commissioning the plant, without any penal charges.

¶4RR Thulasi Builders Pvt Ltd.,

27.05.2026 22706/2026

16.06.2026 Project work has been halted due to

Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing

reasons. Therefore,

Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in the Award Letter for commissioning the plant, without any penal charges.

¶5ACE Renewable Engineering

27.05.2026 23677/2026

22.06.2026 Project work has been halted due to

Respondent issuing a "kept in abeyance" notice without providing

reasons. Therefore,

Respondent should grant a 6-month extension from the cut-off date stated in the Award Letter for commissioning the plant, without any penal charges.

¶3The facts in W.P.No.21524 of 2026 are referred to. The writ petition challenges the impugned order, which is a communication by the Chief Engineer of Non-Conventional Energy Sources of the Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Limited, whereby the petitioner was informed that NFR (Noted for Record) was kept in abeyance.

¶4When the matter came up for hearing, Mr.Vijay Narayanan, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent corporations would submit that it was not with reference to any particular case, but generally, when there was a sudden spurt of activity very close on the heels of the general elections, the abeyance order was issued and after 56 days, the same is also now withdrawn and nothing further survives to be decided in the matter.

¶5In reply thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the petitioners have been in the process of establishing their unit and they were proceeding further by arranging for finance, etc., suddenly, when the impugned communication came, keeping the NFR in abeyance and when they are before the Court and once again now they were informed that the order keeping the NFR in abeyance is already revoked, it is not enough if the 56 days alone are deducted from the calculation of the outer limit, but they must be given additional time without the commitment charges. The reason that is stated is that when the entire order of keeping the NFR in abeyance came, it resulted in the stoppage of the activity. The relevant activities have to now once again reboot from the stage in which they were stopped and have to continue the activity. In many cases, the financing institutions have raised queries and have also gone back. In one or two cases, in the meanwhile, unable to meet the commitments, corporate insolvency proceedings have been initiated. Therefore, they would submit that instead of deducting 56 days alone, a total of 6 months, that is, 180 days, should be given to them while calculating the outer limit.

¶6In reply thereto, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent would submit that when 56 days was on account of the administrative reasons, the petitioners would only be entitled for the said period. Even considering the extraordinary circumstances, only slight leeway can be given and for the balance period, if at all they want extension, it can only be on commitment charges being paid by them as per the agreement entered into by them.

¶7I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

¶8Now, the core grievance with reference to keeping in abeyance of the NFR is no more available. The only difficulty is that originally, when the outer limit has been granted for the various stages to be reached, now, on account of the NFR being kept in abeyance for about a period of 56 days, there is a delay. While there is no objection on behalf of the respondents to deduct that 56 days and extend the time by 56 days, the petitioners are seeking more time. Even more time is not objected to, but the respondents are insisting that a larger period of time would attract the commitment charges. It is in this regard, it must be seen that as commercial ventures, when the petitioners have all invested and were proceeding with the commitment, it is not the case that as on the date of the NFR being kept in abeyance, the petitioners lagged or they did not take any steps at all.

¶9When works of this nature are proceeding in a particular pace, suddenly, when the order of keeping in abeyance, though it was made with a good intention, comes, it also results in a setback to the respective units and as rightly contended, once again, a period of time to reboot themselves should be granted. Even though the learned Advocate General would submit that another two months' time would be a reasonable period, I am of the view that instead of 56 days, by adding a time limit by way of abundant caution so as to avoid further litigation, a total number of 180 days can be extended in respect of each of the petitioners without any additional commitment charges. That does not mean that the petitioners have to prolong their progress. They can also complete their next steps at the earliest, considering that it would be mutually beneficial to complete the project at the earliest and commission the project.

¶10In view thereof, these writ petitions are disposed of on the following terms:

(i) The submission made by the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents that the impugned communication keeping the NFR (Noted for Record) in abeyance is no longer in force and each of the petitioners have already been communicated with the same and all the subordinate authorities and every authority need not now act upon the impugned communication dated

27.05.2026, is recorded and all the authorities, be it the respondent authorities or the other statutory authorities, shall proceed further to process the requests/certificates which are pending at the appropriate stage and the petitioners can further continue to complete their processes and move towards commissioning of the project and projects after obtaining CEIG certificates can be commissioned as expeditiously as possible.

(ii) Pursuant to the original contract or award, a total of 180 days shall be added to each petitioner's final commissioning deadline, and no additional commitment charges shall be enforced for this extended period.

(iii) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs.

19.08.2026 NSL NOTE: The Registry is directed to incorporate the cause title in all cases and issue copies. To

¶1The Chairman and Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL), 10th Floor, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶2The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Ltd., (TNGECL), 10th Floor, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶3The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., (TANTRANSCO), 6th Floor, TANTRANSCO Building, 10th Floor, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600002.

¶4The Director/Technical, The Tamilnadu Green Energy Corporation Ltd., (TNGECL), 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶5The Chief Engineer/NCES (FAC), The Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Ltd., (TNGECL), 10th Floor, Western Wing, NPKKR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶6The Superintending Engineer, TNPDCL, Karur Electricity Distribution Circle, Karur. W.P.No.21524oofo2026,obatchoetc., D.BHARATHAoCHAKRAVARTHY,oJ. NSL W.P.Nos.21524,o20949,o22706,o23103,o23108,o23431,o23445,o23677,o24252,o 25017,o25022,oo26471,o26495,o26502,o26775,o26784,o29131,o29134,o29143,o 29155,o29160,o29166,o29297,o29302,o29304,o30095,o30102,o30292,o30295,o 31177,o31183oofo2026 and W.M.P.Nos.22659,o22660,o22661,o23297,o23300,o23302,o24629,o24630,o 24632,o25035,o25036,o25037,o25040,o25039,o25030,o25422,o25423,o25395,o 25401,o25403,o25420,o25640,o25641,o25642,o26407,o26411,o26406,o27291,o 27293,o27297,o27308,o27309,o27323,o28950,o28952,o28953,o28980,o28984,o 28985,o28993,o28994,o28996,o29290,o29291,o29297,o29303,o29304,o29305,o 31985,o31987,o31972,o31975,o31976,o31984,o31963,o31964,o31965,o32018,o 32025,o32026,o32027,o32008,o32011,o32012,o32015,o32017,o32191,o32194,o 32195,o32189,o32190,o32180,o32182,o32184,o32196,o33071,o33072,o33074,o 33081,o33082,o33083,o33256,o33248,o33250,o33253,o33255,o33247,o34277,o 34278,o34281,o34285,o34286,o34287oofo2026

19.08.2026

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.