D. SARAVANAN versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TANGEDCO TNEB DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 12-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
435
D. SARAVANAN
v.
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TANGEDCO TNEB
DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3763 of 2018)
APRIL 12, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Electricity Laws:
Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004: Clause 27 –
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
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
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
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 –
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 –
[2018] 3  S.C.R. 435
435
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
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.
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
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 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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
437
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.