Where a judicial forum has set aside specific administrative proceedings in settled precedents confirmed by higher courts, authorities are precluded from re-issuing identical orders. Such repetitive actions constitute an abuse of process, and stakeholders are entitled to the relief defined in previously settled, identical legal matters.

ORDER :

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2.These writ petitions have been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent’s impugned Board Proceedings in (Per) FB TNPDCL Proceedings No.44 dated 01.08.2023 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contemptuous and as abuse of process of Court and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to allow Utility Change / Migration in petitioners WEG’s by terminating the existing Energy Purchase Agreements (EPA) and execute a fresh Energy Wheeling Agreement (EWA) under the Captive / Group Captive and third Party Sale Schemes and further direct to make payment of the outstanding dues payable to the petitioner, towards the wind energy sold by the petitioner till the date of the termination of the EPA as per their respective invoices along with interest at 1% per month for the if any delay in payments within a reasonable time.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners installed windmills after obtaining all necessary clearances from the respondent TNPDCL such as Name Transfer Certificate from the second respondent and other prerequisites and the energy generated by the petitioners windmills has been sold to respondent TNPDCL, under Energy Purchase Agreement (EPA) dated 01.09.2025 for the WEGs, in accordance with the feed in tariff notified by the State Commission through its comprehensive Wind Energy Tariff Orders issued periodically. As per the EPAs executed between the petitioners and TNPDCL, the generator would be raising invoices for the energy sold to TNPDCL and in turn, TNPDCL should make payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of those invoices. Any delay in payment beyond 30 days is liable for an interest at 1% per month. Till date, TNPDCL has not paid even a single bill on time, against the invoices raised and the delayed payment are made without any interest.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners has the option to opt for supplying its wind energy to other consumers, within the State of Tamil Nadu, under the Open Access Scheme, which is enshrined under the Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly, the petitioners made application to the second respondent to convert the existing Energy Purchase Agreements (EPA) into Energy Wheeling Agreement (EWA) for the purpose of supplying their wind energy generated in the above WEGs to other consumers, under Group Captive or Third Party Sale Scheme provided under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003,  however, the first respondent issued the impugned Board Proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court has considered similar issue in W.P.No.13729 of 2025 and allowed the said writ petition on 22.04.2025.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

6.It is useful to extract hereunder the relevant portion of the decision of this Court dated 22.04.2025 made in W.P.No.13729 of 2025:

“8. It can be seen that identical board proceedings have been set aside by this Court by the order dated 30.08.2019 and the said order stood confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The only argument that is made is that the Board has revisited based on the late payment surcharge charges. That again was again the subject matter of Division Bench of this Court of which I am also one of the member (Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy) and by an order dated 03.01.2023 it was hel