D. SARAVANANversusSUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TANGEDCO TNEB DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE & ORS.

                          [2018] 3 S.C.R. 435                           435


                           D. SARAVANAN                                 A
                                  v.
      SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TANGEDCO TNEB
             DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 3763 of 2018)                       B
                            APRIL 12, 2018
         [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
      Electricity Laws:
       Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004: Clause 27 –      C
Requisition for supply of energy – Agricultural electrical service
connection – Application for grant of – Application returned after
pointing out the defect that application did not have signature of
Village Administrative Officer – Removal of defects and resubmission
of the application, however, no action taken by respondent – Writ
                                                                        D
petition by the appellant – Direction by Single Judge to the
respondent to consider the application – In pursuance thereof,
submission of application by appellant on 27.01.2017 referring to
his earlier application – By another application submission of
demand draft of Rs 550/- – Thereafter, communication by Executive
Engineer that application not submitted with the registration fee of    E
Rs. 50/- –Respondent challenging judgment of the Single Judge on
the ground of incomplete application for non-submission of
registration fee – Division Bench held that the application submitted
by the appellant in 2017 be considered – On appeal, held: Clause
27 cast obligation on the respondents-electricity department to
                                                                        F
indicate the defects in application and return the same – Non-
submission of registration fee is also a defect in the application as
contemplated by Clause 27 – Note which is a statutory in nature
obliges the respondents to communicate defects in the application
returned to the appellant – No such defect of non-deposit of
registration fee of Rs.50/- was pointed out by the respondents –        G
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 – Non-remittance of Rs.50/- was, thus, not such reason on
the basis of which entire claim of the appellant could be rejected –
                                                                        H
                                435
436            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A     Claim of appellant regarding seniority of his application from
      06.12.2010 cannot be accepted since the respondents immediately
      pointed out the defect on 07.03.2011 and returned the application
      and re-submitted on 21.03.2011 – Appellant entitled for
      consideration of his application from the date of resubmission-
      21.03.2011.
B
            Disposing of the appeal, the Court
             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
C     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
D     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
E     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 non-
      deposit 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
F     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/-
G     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

H
      D. SARAVANAN v. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER                           437
     TANGEDCO TNEB DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE & ORS.

with regard to submission of the application/rectify the defects.       A
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
                                                                        B
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   C
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             D
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        E
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          F
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          G
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

                                                                        H
438            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A     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]
B
             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
C     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
D     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]
E           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
F     any further fee or other requirements. [Para 20] [445-C-D]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3763
      of 2018.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2017 of the High Court
G     of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in W. A. (MD) No. 846 of 2017.
            S. Nagamuthu, M. P. Parthiban, A. S. Vairawan, Ms. Sneha Kalita,
      Advs. for the Appellant.
            Vinodh Kanna B., Adv. for the Respondents.

H
      D. SARAVANAN v. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER                               439
            TANGEDCO TNEB DISTRI. CIRCLE

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            A
      ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. 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.                  B

      3. The brief facts of the case which are necessary to be noted for
deciding this appeal are:
      The appellant has submitted an application dated 06.12.2010
praying for grant of Agricultural Electricity Service Connection for use    C
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         D
      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
                                                                            E
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            F
      petitioner to fulfill the necessary conditions with regard to
      submission of 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        G
      period of one month thereafter.
            With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed
      of. No costs.”

                                                                            H
440             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A            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
B
      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
C     application shall be considered as fresh application on 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
D     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
E     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.
F            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
G     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 counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents where
      the provisions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004
H
    D. SARAVANAN v. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER                                       441
 TANGEDCO TNEB DISTRI. CIRCLE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code, 2004’) have been referred. The             A
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 years.
                                                                                  B
       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                C
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 counter-affidavit filed by the respondents only limited
agricultural service connections are given in each year that too on the           D
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 stating that the application sent by the appellant does not
have signature of Village Administrative Officer and hence the same is            E
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            F
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           G
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:

                                                                                  H
442             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A           “27. Requisitions for Supply of Energy:
            (1)        xxx          xxx          xxx
            Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section,
            “application” means the application complete in all respects
            in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution
B           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
C           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.”

D             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
E     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, Annexure R/1
      has been filed with the heading “PROCEDURE FOR GETTING
      AGRICULTURAL SERVICE CONNECTION”, Clause 7 of which
F     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
G
            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 non-
      submission of registration fee is also a defect in the application as
H
    D. SARAVANAN v. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER                                    443
 TANGEDCO TNEB DISTRI. CIRCLE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

contemplated by Clause 27 of the Code, 2004. The note as extracted             A
above which is a statutory in nature obliges the respondents to
communicate defects in the application returned to the appellant. No
such defect of non-deposit 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
                                                                               B
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              C
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.
                                                                               D
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/-. 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         E
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           F
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. It is relevant to notice   G
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
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:                              H
444             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A            “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.”
B             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 non-remittance 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
C     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
D     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 counter-affidavit. 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
E     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.
F
             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
G
      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
H
    D. SARAVANAN v. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER                                       445
 TANGEDCO TNEB DISTRI. CIRCLE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

obviated the litigation and loss of time and energy of both the parties.          A
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
                                                                                  B
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.,     C
the date it was resubmitted.
     (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       D
which need to be complied with by the appellant for the purpose.


Nidhi Jain                                                  Appeal disposed of.

                                                                                  E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H