JUDGMENT (Prayer W.P.No.11510 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd and 3rd respondents relating to the bearing Circular Memo No.CFC/FC/ REV/AS.3/ D.325/17, dated 15.03.2017 and the consequential and further proceedings in (i) Memo No.CFC/REV/ FC/ REV/ AS.3/ F.CGP/D.203/17, dated 18.03.2017; (ii) Circular Memo No.CFC/REV/ FC/REV/AS.3/ F.CGP/D.329/17 dated 30/31.03.2017 (iii)Lr.No.CFC/REV/ FC/ REV/ DFC/ AO.4/F.CGP Status/D.259/2017 dated 31.03.2017; (iv) Memo No.CFC/REV/FC/FC/REV/F.CGP Status/D.334/2017 dated 07.04.2017; (v) Memo No.CFC/ REV/ FC/REV/AS.3/F.CGP/D.338/17 dated 15.04.2017; and (vi) Memo No.CEF/REV/FC/REV /AS.3/F.CGP/ D.340/17 dated 15.04.2017 and L.R.No.0394SE/ KEDC/ DFC/ F.CGP Status/2017 dated 19.04.2017 issued by the 5th respondent and quash the same as being contrary to law and direct the respondents to strictly comply with the statutory provisions of Electricity Act 2003, Electricity Rules, 2005 and the binding judgments of the Hon''ble APTEL, in the matter of determination and verification of status of the Captive Generating Plants by approaching the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission for directions and determination of the status of the Captive Generating Plants as stipulated under the provisions of Electricity Rules, 2005 and confirmed by the binding judgments of the Hon''ble APTEL. W.P.No.11511 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd and 3rd respondents relating to the bearing Circular Memo No.CFC/FC/ REV/AS.3/ D.325/17, dated 15.03.2017 and the consequential and further proceedings in (i) Memo No.CFC/REV/ FC/ REV/ AS.3/ F.CGP/D.203/17, dated 18.03.2017; (ii) Circular Memo No.CFC/REV/ FC/REV/AS.3/ F.CGP/D.329/17 dated 30/31.03.2017; (iii)Lr.No.CFC/REV/ FC/ REV/ DFC/ AO.4/F.CGP Status/D.259/2017 dated 31.03.2017; (iv) Memo No.CFC/REV/FC/FC/REV/F.CGP Status/D.334/2017 dated 07.04.2017; (v) Memo No.CFC/ REV/ FC/REV/AS.3/F.CGP/D.338/17 dated 15.04.2017; and (vi) Memo No.CFC/REV/FC/REV /AS.3/F.CGP/ D.340/17 dated 15.04.2017 and L.R.No.0392SE/ EDC/ DFC/ F.CGP Status/2017 dated 19.04.2017 issued by the 5th respondent and quash the same as being contrary to law and direct the respondents to strictly comply with the statutory provisions of Electricity Act 2003, Electricity Rules, 2005 and the binding judgments of the Hon''ble APTEL, in the matter of determination and verification of status of the Captive Generating Plants by approaching the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission for directions and determination of the status of the Captive Generating Plants as stipulated under the provisions of Electricity Rules, 2005 and confirmed by the binding judgments of the Hon''ble APTEL. W.P.No.11512 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd and 3rd respondents relating to the bearing Circular Memo No.CFC/FC/ REV/AS.3/ D.325/17, dated 15.03.2017 and the consequential and further proceedings in (i) Memo No.CFC/REV/ FC/ REV/ AS.3/ F.CGP/D.203/17, dated 18.03.2017; (ii) Circular Memo No.CFC/REV/ FC/REV/AS.3/ F.CGP/D.329/17 dated 30/31.03.2017; (iii)Lr.No.CFC/REV/ FC/ REV/ DFC/ AO.4/F.CGP Status/D.259/2017 dated 31.03.2017; (iv) Memo No.CFC/REV/FC/FC/REV/F.CGP Status/D.334/2017 dated 07.04.2017; (v) Memo No.CFC/ REV/ FC/REV/AS.3/F.CGP/D.338/17 dated 15.04.2017; and (vi) Memo No.CFC/REV/FC/REV /AS.3/F.CGP/ D.340/17 dated 15.04.2017 and L.R.No.0395SE/ KEDC/ DFC/ F.CGP Status/2017 dated 19.04.2017 issued by the 5th respondent and quash the same as being contrary to law and direct the respondents to strictly comply with the statutory provisions of Electricity Act 2003, Electricity Rules, 2005 and the binding judgments of the Hon''ble APTEL, in the matter of determination and verification of status of the Captive Generating Plants by approaching the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission for directions and determination of the status of the Captive Generating Plants as stipulated under the provisions of Electricity Rules, 2005 and confirmed by the binding judgments of the Hon''ble APTEL.) Common Order 1. These writ petitions have been filed, challenging the various circulars/memos mentioned above, issued by the 3rd respondent/The Chief Financial Controller-Revenue of the TANGEDCO. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, a similar issue was under challenge before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi. The said Tribunal has passed the following order : “17. Summary of Findings:- Based on issue-wise discussion & analysis, stated supra, we sum up our findings as under:~ 17.1 Issue No.1:- We hold that the second Respondent/TANGEDCO can be entrusted with the exercise of collecting & verifying data for the purpose of verification of captive plant status only. However, any coercive action to be initiated against the CGP /captive users regarding its captive status or for recovery of CSS, as per law, it shall be decided by the first Respondent / State Commission. 17.2 Issue No.2:- We hold that for the purpose of granting open access for captive purpose, the document as recorded at Para 11.3 shall be adequate/sufficient. 17.2 Issue No.2:- We hold that for the purpose of granting open access for captive purpose, the document as recorded at Para 11.3 shall be adequate/sufficient. Needless to mention that these documents, as specified therein, are within the framework of TNERC Grid Connectivity & Intra State Open Access Regulations, 2014 and also do not violate the provisions of Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005. 17.3 Issue No.3:- We hold that as per provisions stipulated under the Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005, the SPV & AOP are two distinct entities and cannot be equated at par for computation of annual power consumption for determining the captive status. 17.4 Issue No.4:- We hold that the verification for determining ownership & consumption for CGP /captive users under Rule 3, being an independent exercise, has to be done on annual basis, at the end of financial year. 17.5 Issue No.5:- We hold that the directions contained in Paras 6.6.3 and 7.8.2 of the impugned order passed by the State Commission are in disregard to Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules and hence, cannot be sustained. 17.6 Issue No.6:- We hold that as per settled principles of law, there cannot be retrospective application of the procedure formulated under the impugned order for verification of status of CGP/captive users. However, it is clarified that for the past years, the second Respondent/TANGEDO can verify data for the purpose of determination of captive plant status on the basis of data already furnished by CGP/Captive users while availing the open access. 17.7 Issue No.7:- We set aside the directions contained in Para 7.6.9 of the impugned order wherein the State Commission has held that, in the event, the weightage average of shareholding of captive users changes within a financial year, then the same has to be intimated within ten days to the second respondent/TANGEDCO, otherwise the said licensee would proceed to verify captive status without considering weightage average shareholding.”? 3. Against the above said order, an appeal was preferred before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the same has been pending. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the present case as well as the issue pending before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Diary No.21493 of 2021 is one and the same. 3. Against the above said order, an appeal was preferred before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the same has been pending. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the present case as well as the issue pending before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Diary No.21493 of 2021 is one and the same. In the event any order is passed in the appeal by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the same would squarely apply to these Writ Petitions as well. Therefore, the learned counsel would pray that these Writ Petitions may be closed by recording that whatever the order is to be passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above appeal would also apply to these present Writ Petitions as well. 4. In view of the above submission made by the petitioner that the issue in these present writ petitions as well as the issue in the appeal pending before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Diary No.21493 of 2021 is one and the same and any order, which is going to be passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the appeal, will hold good in respect of these present Writ Petitions as well. 5. With the above observation, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.