D. Saravanan vs Superintending Engineer Tangedco Tneb Distribution Circle & Ors.

HELD: 1.1 Clause 27 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 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 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. In the procedure as laid down by the respondents, registration fee of Rs.50/- was required to be submitted. The non-submission of registration fee is also a defect in the application as contemplated by Clause 27 of the Code, 2004. The note 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 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 non-deposit of registration fee of Rs.50/-. The respondents cannot be allowed to take the benefit of its inaction or its lapse which is not in conformity with the statutory obligation cast on it. 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 Single Judge did not contain any direction which, in any manner, can be said to cause any prejudice to the respondents. The Single Judge only permitted the appellant to fulfill the necessary conditions with regard to submission of the application/rectify the defects. The Single Judge 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/-. Non-remittance of Rs.50/- was, 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. [Para 15-16] [442-D-H; 443-A-E]

1.2 In so far as the claim of the appellant regarding seniority of his application from 06.12.2010 is concerned, there is no inclination to accept the same since the respondents immediately pointed out the defect on 07.03.2011 and returned the application. The application which was re-submitted 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. In the LPA by which the judgment of the Single Judge was challenged, the resubmission of the application on 21.03.2011 was not questioned, however, it was pleaded that after five years of resubmission, the writ petition has been filed. [Para 17] [443-F-H]

1.3 It is accepted 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 non-remittance of Rs.50/- as registration fee has been denying the claim of the appellant. The Division Bench 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 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. The procedure 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. [Para 18] [444-B-E]

1.4 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 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. 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. However, 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. [Para 19] [444-G-H; 445-A-B]

1.5 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; the appellant shall resubmit a fresh demand draft of Rs.550/- which was returned by the respondent on 20.02.2017; and the respondents may process the application and intimate within a period of three months about any further fee or other requirements. [Para 20] [445-C-D]