Summary
The Supreme Court directed consideration of an agricultural electricity application as registered from its corrected resubmission on 21 March 2011. The utility had returned the original application identifying only a missing Village Administrative Officer signature and could not benefit from failing to identify the unpaid registration fee as required by the statutory note. The applicant’s status as an advocate did not establish knowledge of every procedural requirement. He was to resubmit Rs. 550, and the utility was to communicate further requirements within three months.
Issues
- Whether the utility’s failure to identify the unpaid registration fee justified treating the application only as a fresh 2017 application.
- What registration date and consequential directions were appropriate.
Provisions considered
- Clause 27(1), Explanation, and note to clause 27, Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004The Explanation required an application complete in all respects, while the statutory note required acknowledgement and identification of defects when returning an incomplete application. The utility could not benefit from its failure to communicate the fee defect. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 19)
Held
- Non-payment of the Rs. 50 registration fee was a defect which the utility was required to communicate. Having returned the application identifying only the missing signature, it could not rely on its own failure to notify the fee deficiency to defeat the corrected application’s earlier consideration. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 19)
- Registration priority ran from the accepted resubmission on 21 March 2011, rather than the original defective application of 6 December 2010. The applicant’s profession did not justify presuming awareness of all application procedures or excluding him from the scheme. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- The applicant was required to resubmit the returned Rs. 550 demand draft. The utility was directed to consider the application as registered from 21 March 2011 and communicate any further fees or requirements within three months. This was a direction for processing, not unconditional immediate supply. (¶ 20)
Result
Appeal disposed of with registration effective 21 March 2011 for consideration; applicant to resubmit Rs. 550 demand draft, and utility to intimate further fees or requirements within three months.