1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3763 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)NO.20013 OF 2017)

D. SARAVANAN                       … APPELLANT

VERSUS

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TANGEDCO TNEB DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE & ORS.             … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the Division Bench

judgment dated 28.06.2017 of the Madurai Bench of Madras

High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the

respondents. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of

the Division Bench has come up in this appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case which are necessary to be

noted for deciding this appeal are:

2

The appellant has submitted an application dated

06.12.2010 praying for grant of Agricultural Electricity

Service Connection for use of agricultural equipments

with reference to his agricultural land admeasuring

5 acres. The application was returned by the Executive

Engineer (Distribution) Rural, Tamil Nadu Electricity

Board, with the following observation:

“The application which you sent does not have signature of VAO, Village Administrative Officer and hence the same is returned back.”

4. The appellant after getting defects removed,

resubmitted the application on 21.03.2011. No action

having been taken by the respondents on the said

application writ petition was filed by the appellant in

the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

5. Learned Single Judge  after noticing the case of the

appellant disposed of the writ petition with the

following direction:

"4. The above submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents is placed on record. It is open to the petitioner to fulfill the necessary conditions with regard to submission of

3

application/rectify the defects, if any, in the application already filed, within a period of one month from today and thereafter, the respondents shall consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, if there are no legal impediments within a period of one month thereafter.

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.”

6. In pursuance of the direction of learned Single Judge

dated 20.01.2017, the appellant submitted an application

on 27.01.2017 referring to his application as earlier

made on 06.12.2010 with request to provide the details of

the fees  to be remitted. By further application dated

10.02.2017 demand draft of Rs.550/­ was also submitted.

The Executive Engineer vide his letter dated 15.02.2017

communicated that the application of the appellant having

not been submitted along with payment of fee of Rs.50/­

as per procedure to obtain agricultural electricity

service connection and further he has not deposited

Rs.500/­ towards plan advance deposit. Letter stated that

in the event a fresh application is filed along with

recent revenue documents along with fee of Rs.50/­, the

application shall be considered as fresh application on

4

priority basis. Further, by letter dated 20.02.2017 the

Assistant Executive Engineer returned demand draft for

Rs.550/­ and the appellant was requested to apply  afresh

as advised earlier on 15.02.2017.

7. The respondent challenged the judgment of the learned

Single Judge dated 20.01.2017 by filing a Letters Patent

Appeal(Writ Appeal) before the Madras High Court at

Madurai. In the LPA main ground taken was that

application of the appellant was not submitted along with

registration fee of Rs.50/­, the same was not a complete

application, hence, learned Single Judge committed error

in directing to consider such application. The Division

Bench vide its judgment dated 28.06.2017 set aside the

order of learned Single Judge. The Division Bench further

observed that the application submitted by the appellant

in the year 2017 be considered, if it is otherwise in

order and pass orders in accordance with law. The

appellant aggrieved by the judgment   of Division Bench

has come up in this appeal.

5

8. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench

indicates that the Division Bench took the view that the

appellant (who was respondent in the writ appeal) being

member of the legal profession is presumed to  be aware

of  the rules and  regulations, hence,  no relaxation or

latitude can be granted to the appellant. The Division

Bench, further, observed that attempt of the

appellant/writ petitioner is to take advantage of his own

wrong in not complying with the terms and conditions

stipulated for grant of free agricultural service

connection.

9. A counter­affidavit has been filed by the respondents

where the provisions of Tamil Nadu Electricity

Distribution Code, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the

'Code, 2004') have been referred. The respondents have

supported the order passed by the Division Bench. It is

pleaded that application of the appellant dated

06.12.2010 having been incomplete on account of non­

deposit of registration fee of Rs.50/­, the same was not

required to be registered. It is further pleaded that the

appellant approached the High Court after a delay of six

6

years.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

11. From the judgment of the Division Bench which is

impugned in this appeal it is clear that application for

agricultural service connection submitted by the

appellant is registered in the year, 2017 and the

respondents have been directed to consider the same in

accordance with law. The only issue needs to be

considered is as to whether the appellant is entitled to

treat his application from any earlier point of time.

12. As per the counter­affidavit filed by the respondents

only limited agricultural service connections are given

in each year that too on the basis of seniority of the

application. There is no dispute of the fact between the

parties that originally the application was filed for

agricultural service connection on 06.12.2010 on which an

objection was raised by the respondent­ The Executive

Engineer (Distribution) vide letter dated 07.03.2011

7

stating that the application sent by the appellant does

not have signature of Village Administrative Officer and

hence the same is returned back. The appellant obtained

signature of Village Administrative Officer and re­

submitted the application on 21.03.2011. No action was

taken by the respondents, thereafter, the writ petition

was filed in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single

Judge on 20.01.2017 directing the respondents to consider

the application of the appellant in accordance with law.

The appellant was granted liberty to fulfill the

necessary conditions with regard to submission of

application/rectify the defects. After the order of the

Court, the Executive Engineer pointed out that

application having not been submitted with registration

fee of Rs.50/­, the same cannot be considered and it is

open for the appellant to make a fresh application along

with necessary fee.

13. The respondents rely on the provisions of the Code,

2004, Clause 27(1), Explanation of which is to the

following effect:

8

"27. Requisitions for Supply of Energy: (1) xxx xxx xxx

Explanation:­ For the purposes of this sub­section, “application” means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances.”

14. In Clause 27, itself there is a note to the following

effect:

"Note: Requisitions for supply of energy (Application), even if incomplete, and irrespective of whether they are handed over in person or by post, should be acknowledged in writing. If they are in order, they shall be registered immediately and acknowledged. If they are incomplete, the defects should be indicated and returned without registration.”

15. The  above provision,  thus,  cast  obligation  on the

respondents to indicate the defects in application and

return the same. When the application of the appellant

was returned on 07.03.2011 only defect pointed out was

that 'application does not have signature of Village

Administrative Officer', no other defect was pointed out

nor it was pointed out that registration fee of Rs.50/­

is not deposited. The respondents submitted that it was

9

the duty of the appellant to deposit registration fee of

Rs.50/­ which is required by the procedure prescribed.

The respondents rely on a procedure for getting

agricultural service connection, Annexure R/1 has been

filed with the heading “PROCEDURE FOR GETTING

AGRICULTURAL SERVICE CONNECTION”, Clause 7 of which is to

the following effect:

"7. The filled up application form along with above mentioned documents should be submitted at the Executive Engineer/ Operation and Maintenance Office of the jurisdiction concerned. For registering the application Rs.50/­ has to be paid. After registering the application an acknowledgement mentioning the registration number and date of registration will   be given to the applicant.”

16. Thus, in the procedure as laid down by the

respondents, registration fee of Rs.50/­ was required to

be submitted. The non­submission of registration fee is

also a defect in the application as contemplated by

Clause 27 of the Code, 2004. The note as extracted above

which is a statutory in nature obliges the respondents to

communicate defects in the application returned to the

appellant. No such defect of non­deposit of registration

10

fee of Rs.50/­ has been pointed out by the respondents

and now the entire case of the respondents is based on

the above shortcoming of non­deposit of registration fee

of Rs.50/­. Can the respondents be allowed to take the

benefit of its inaction or its lapse which is not in

conformity with the statutory obligation cast on it ? The

answer obviously has to be 'no'. It is further to be

noted that vide letter dated 10.02.2017 the demand draft

of Rs.550/­ was deposited which consisted registration

fee of  Rs.50/­ and Rs.500/­ as scheme advance. The said

demand draft was returned by the respondents on

20.02.2017. The directions issued by the learned Single

Judge as extracted above in paragraph 4 of the judgment

did not contain any direction which, in any manner, can

be said to cause any prejudice to the respondents.

Learned Single Judge only permitted the appellant to

fulfill the necessary conditions with regard to

submission of the application/rectify the defects.

Learned Single Judge has also noticed that the

shortcoming which was pointed out by  the letter dated

07.03.2011 did not mention the shortcoming of non­

remittance of Rs.50/­. Non­remittance of Rs.50/­ was,

11

thus, not such reason on the basis of which entire claim

of the appellant could be rejected. The petitioner in the

writ petition has also clearly mentioned that his

application may be considered under free agricultural

service connection or under Revised Self Financing

Scheme(RSFS) by paying the scheme cost for a sum of

Rs.10,000/­ or Rs.25,000/­ or Rs.50,000/­ by fixing the

seniority from 06.12.2010.

17. In so far as the claim of the appellant regarding

seniority of his application from 06.12.2010 is

concerned, we are not inclined to accept the same since

the respondents immediately pointed out the defect on

07.03.2011 and returned the application. The application

which was re­submitted on 21.03.2011 ought to have been

accepted by the respondents since no  other  defect was

pointed out. In any view of the matter, the appellant

would have asked to remit registration fee of Rs.50/­ by

the respondents for registering the application. It is

relevant to notice that in the LPA by which the judgment

of the learned Single Judge was challenged, the

resubmission of the application on 21.03.2011 was not

12

questioned, however,   it was pleaded that after five

years of resubmission, the writ petition has been filed.

It shall be useful to notice ground 'c' of the writ

appeal which is to the following effect:

"c. The Learned Judge ought to have seen that the writ petitioner has submitted the application on 06.12.2010 and resubmitted on 21.03.2011 and has filed the writ petition in the year 2016 i.e. after the lapse of five years and no reason was attributed to delay in filing.”

18. We, thus, accept that the appellant's application was

resubmitted on 21.03.2011. The appellant, thus, was

entitled to consider his application treating to have

been submitted on 21.03.2011. The respondents on trivial

issue of non­remittance of Rs.50/­ as registration fee

has been denying the claim of the appellant. The Division

Bench in its judgment has noted that the appellant is a

practicing Advocate and he ought to have known about the

rules and regulations. The case of the appellant that he

was not aware that Rs.50/­ was required to be deposited

has been disbelieved only because he is an Advocate. A

presumption that an Advocate is supposed to know the law

can be raised but there can be no presumption that an

13

Advocate is well aware of all procedural requirements

regarding making of an application for agricultural

service connection. The payment of Rs.50/­ as

registration fee was a part of the procedure envisaged by

the respondents as is clear from Annexure R/1 to the

counter­affidavit. The procedure Annexure R/1 also

clearly indicates that a scheme is applicable category

wise which could have been availed by anyone. There was

no excluded category so as to infer that a practicing

Advocate is not eligible to avail the benefit of the

scheme. The procedure (Annexure R/1)   clearly

contemplates:

"A. Free agricultural service connection is being given to the following categories and the Board is bearing entire estimate cost.

i. Normal :­ Any one can apply in this case.

ii. xxx xxx xxx.”

19. We are of the view that the Division Bench without

any basis refused to accept the stand of the appellant

that he is not aware that Rs.50/­ was to be submitted as

registration fee. The respondent while writing letter

dated 07.03.2011 pointed out the defect in the

14

application dated 06.12.2010 and the defect of non­

remittance of Rs.50/­ as registration fee would have been

as well pointed out which could have obviated the

litigation and loss of time and energy of both the

parties. We are, thus, of the view that the respondents

cannot be allowed to take benefit of their lapse in not

pointing out  the defect while they wrote letter dated

07.03.2011. We, however, are of the view that the

appellant was entitled for consideration of his

application only with effect from 21.03.2011 which is the

date on which application was resubmitted and the

respondents cannot be allowed to take benefit of their

own inaction in not communicating the defect by letter

dated 07.03.2011.

20. We, thus, dispose of this appeal with the following

directions:

(1) The respondents are directed to consider the

application of the appellant treating it to be

registered with effect from 21.03.2011, i.e., the

date it was resubmitted.

15

(2) The appellant shall resubmit a fresh demand

draft of Rs.550/­ which was returned by the

respondent on 20.02.2017.

(3) The respondents may process the application and

intimate within a period of three months about any

further fee or other requirements which need to be

complied with by the appellant for the purpose.

...............................J. ( A.K. SIKRI )

...............................J. ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

NEW DELHI, APRIL 12, 2018.