Dismissed

M.Murugesan, v. The Chairman Cum Managing

Madras HC20 Mar 2019WP/20834/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a TANGEDCO circular introducing a fee-based 'Tatkal' scheme for agricultural electricity connections shorter waiting lists, arguing it violated Article 14 by dividing farmers based on capacity to pay. The Court held the scheme was a valid policy decision to augment revenue for free connections to others, ensuring intelligible classification and rational relation, and dism

What did the court decide?

Instant writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed; no costs awarded; scheme upheld.

M.Murugesan, Vs The Chairman Cum Managing — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.03.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶5

WP.No.20834 of 2017
and WMP Nos.21692 & 21693 of 2017
M.Murugesan ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
TANGEDCO Ltd.,
NPKRR Maaligai,
No.144, Annasalai,
Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Director / Distribution,
TANGEDCO Ltd.,
NPKRR Maaligai,
No.144, Annasalai,
Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondents
WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified
mandamus, calling for the records of impugned circular in
Lr.No.SE/RE&I(D)/EE/RE/A1/F.Agri TSFS 17-18/D.435/17 dated
24.06.2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent authority and quash
the same and consequentially direct the respondents to grant
agricultural electricity service connection to the farmers in
accordance with seniority list.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Myilsamy
For Respondents : Mr.Vijay Narayanan
Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.K.Rameshuwar
Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO

¶6

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶7

ORDER

¶8

(Order of the Court was made by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J)

¶9

This public interest writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of circular Lr.No.SE/RE&I(D)/EE/RE/A1/F.Agri TSFS 17-18/D.435/17 dated 24.06.2017 issued by the Director / Distribution, TANGEDCO Ltd., Chennai, the 2nd respondent and quash the same. The TANGEDCO issued the circular dated 24.06.2017, which reads as hereunder.

¶10

"Lr.No.SE/RE&I(D)/EE/RE/A1/F.Agri TSFS 17-18/D.435/17 dated 24.06.2017

¶11

Sir,

¶12

Sub: EOS to agriculture pump sets - TATKAL Scheme - Announcement made by Honourable Minister for Electricity - Instruction for Implementation - Regarding.

¶13

**** In the Government of Tamil Nadu, Energy Department Demand No.14 of 2017-2018, the Honourable Minster for Electricity has announced as below:

¶14

"With blessings of Honourable Amma" and by order of Honourable Chief Minister an agricultural electricity service connection will be granted to the farmers under Tatkal Scheme. This scheme is purely on the willingness of existing waiting list farmers. The waiting list farmers could get an agricultural electricity service connection for which they have to pay 2.5 lakhs from 5HP (Horse Power) Motors, 2.75 Lakhs for 7.5HP Motors and Rs.3 Lakhs for 10 HP Motors. Electricity service connection will be granted immediately within six months to the first 10,000 farmers who have paid the sum of rupees in one lump sum amount.

¶15

Based on the announcement of Honourable Minister for Electricity in the floor of Assembly on 19.6.2017 in the Energy Department Demand No.14 of 2017-2018, TANGEDCO has proposed to implement the special priority new agriculture pump set energisation Tatkal Self Financing Scheme 17-18.

¶16

In this regard the following instructions are issued for implementation of Tatkal Self Financing Scheme 17-18.

¶17

The scheme will be called as Tatkal Self Financing Scheme 17-18 in short TSFS-17-18. This scheme is optional and purely on the willingness of

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

existing applicants. Total numbers of beneficiaries are 10000 members.

¶20

The circle was target arrived proportionately based on the pending application is furnished in Annexure. The Regional Chief Engineers will be reallocate Division wise Target.

¶21

Name transfer and SF change if any shall be completed. Reduction of load originally specified in the application is not permitted. After verifying the revenue documents as per Form-2 of TNERC Distribution code, NOC (if applicable ) the willingness application and demand draft may be accepted. The maximum time limit is 6 months for effecting service connection from the date of payment.

¶22

Before taking up the works in Tatkal self financing scheme 17-18 under section priority, existing ready parties in Normal, RSFS categories and Govt. Schemes should be completed on war footing.

¶23

The regional Chief Engineers / Distribution shall implement the scheme with immediate effect and monitor Tatkal Self Financing Scheme 17-18 and send the progress report to CE/Plg & RC on every fortnight.

¶24

The receipt of this letter shall be acknowledged. S/d-. Director (Distribution) TANGEDCO

¶25

The petitioner sent a representation on 07.07.2017, stating that Tatkal Self Financing Scheme 17-18 under which a farmer can get an agricultural electricity service connection on payment of money, defeats the seniority list of farmers who are in the waiting list for getting electricity. According to the petitioner such a scheme divided the farmers on the basis of capacity to pay. The petitioner sent a representation dated 07.07.2017 against the tatkal self financing scheme. Since the representation of the petitioner was not acted upon, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition contending that the scheme is completely violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

The petitioner would contend that farmers have registered

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

themselves with the authorities for availing free agricultural electricity service connection. Many of the farmers have waited for more than 20 years and their applications are still pending. He would state that in anticipation of getting electricity service connection, farmers have even purchased motor pump sets, which are kept idle. The petitioner would state that so called Tatkal Self Financing Scheme 17-18 which is purely based on the capacity to pay, has to be struck down, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

On notice, the TANGEDCO has filed counter affidavits. In the counter affidavits filed, TANGEDCO has taken a specific stand that tatkal scheme is a self financed scheme, which does not affect the normal waiting list of farmers. In the last of the counter affidavit, the TANGEDCO has stated as under.

¶30

"2. I respectfully submit that TANGEDCO effects agriculture service connections based on the registration priority of application in Division level under Normal Scheme. When special priority schemes are announced by Government of Tamil Nadu, based on the willingness and eligibility, the normal waiting applicant can opt for special priority scheme.

¶31

I respectfully submit that Tatkal Self Financing scheme is one of the special priority scheme announced by Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 2017. Only willing applicant who opts to come under Tatkal Self Financing Scheme pay the one time charges to get agriculture service connection. Even if any applicant who first opts to pay the cost and later expresses their inability to pay the cost, the application is not cancelled and is again retained in the Normal waiting list with original seniority. It is only and additional optional opportunity given by the Government of Tamil Nadu to the farmers to get agriculture service connection in separate priority.

¶32

I respectfully submit the details of year wise pending agriculture applications under different schemes and corresponding service connection effected as tabled below.

¶33

Category		Year
	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

	Category			Ye	ar
		Pending applica tions as on 31.03.1 2	servic e connec tion effect ed	Pending applica tions as on 31.03.1 3	servic e connec tion effect ed Pending applica tions as on 31.03.1 4	servic e connec tion effect ed
Schemes	Normal	193807	10668	196474	6390 214065	4386
other than Tatkal Self	Revised Self Financing Scheme	1464	341	1113	418 895	250
Financi ng	Rs.10,000 /-
Scheme	Revised Self Financing Scheme Rs.25,000 /-	66742	2829	69020	1380 79441	913
	Revised Self	51686	4227	62721	3155 81467	2946
	Financing Scheme Rs.50,000 /-
Tatkal Self Financi	Tatkal Self Financing	-	-	-	- -	-
ng Scheme	Scheme
	Total	313699	18065	329328	11343 375868	8495
	Category			Yea	r
		2015	-16	2016	-17 2017	-18
		Pending applica tions as on	service connect ion effecte	Pending applica tions as on	servic e connec tion Pending applica tions as on	servic e connec tion
		31.03.1 5	d	31.03.1 6	effect ed 31.03.1 7	effect ed

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

Category Year
Schemes Normal 207343 7050 203356 8616 213075 13411
other
Revised 1113 334 850 219 950 161
than
Self
Tatkal
Financin
Self
g Scheme
Financin
Rs.10,00
g Scheme
0/-
Revised 77330 2629 80481 1778 80673 1691
Self
Financin
g Scheme
Rs.25,00
0/-
Revised 95043 3551 105082 1972 118718 5572
Self
Financin
g Scheme
Rs.50,00
0/-
- - - - -
Tatkal Tatkal 10000
Self Self
Financin Financin
g Scheme g Scheme
Total 380829 13564 389769 12585 413416 30835

¶38

I respectfully submit that from the above table it could be seen that every year TANGEDCO is receiving more number of agriculture applications and the waiting period varies according to the scheme. Registering of more number of agriculture applications by the farmers are due to (1) Supply of energy for all the agricultural service connection is free of cost, (2) Partition of family property, (3) Depletion of ground water table To reduce the waiting period an applicant who first registers the application under Normal category can opt under any of the operational self financing schemes till he get agriculture service connection for his registered application."

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶40

A perusal of the counter would show that that scheme introduced by the Government is a self finance scheme. There are several schemes other than the Tatkal Self Financing Scheme. The wait list in each of the scheme wherein farmers have paid

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶42

different sums of money, is different.

¶43

A perusal of the Tatkal Self Financing Scheme 17-18 extracted in the earlier part of the order shows that a farmer who is able to pay 2.5 Lakhs for a 5HP Motor, Rs.2.75 Lakhs for a 7HP Motor and Rs.3 Lakhs for 10HP Motor would be granted electricity supply within six months. This Scheme is available only for the first 10,000 farmers and the amount also has to be paid in one lumpsum.

¶44

It is well settled that courts must not interfere in policy decisions, unless the policy is ex facie arbitrary. Under the present policy, if a farmer is in a position to pay a particular sum of money and in return he gets an electricity connection faster than other farmers, it cannot be said that there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Each scheme has its own waiting list. It is to be noted that this tatkal scheme is available for first 10000 farmers, who avail this facility. The policy of the Government therefore, cannot be said to be manifestly arbitrary. If a Government comes out with a policy for a group of persons, who are in a position to pay, with an object of augmenting their revenue, then it comes within the scope of policy and cannot be rejected, on the ground of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

The learned Advocate General appearing for the Electricity Board, categorically stated that the amount generated from the Tatkal Self Financing Scheme 17-18 is being used for laying the electricity connections to other farmers who are virtually not paying anything for it. He categorically stated that the Electricity Board does not have the financial capacity to give electricity completely free to all farmers.

¶46

The Karnataka High Court, while dealing with a PIL [Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao, Secretary General, Karnataka State Federation Consumers' Organisation Vs. The Union of India and Another, reported in 2000 SCC Online kar 794], wherein the Tatkal scheme, which was introduced in the State of Karnataka for giving out of turn LPG cylinders for domestic use was introduced, was challenged, the same was rejected by observing as under.

¶47

"8. The grievance of the petitioner insofar as the introduction of 'Tatkal' Scheme is concerned, the scheme was challenged before the Delhi High Court in public interest litigation. The High Court of Delhi upheld the scheme by holding that it was purely a matter of policy. The High Court of Delhi made the following observations in this regard:

¶48

"However, we would like to take judicial notice of the fact that LPG is

¶49

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶50

supplied at subsidised price, that is to say, at a price lower than its cost. If the Government comes out with a policy for those persons, who are in a position to pay, with the objective to augment the revenue, we would not like to interfere with the same, as it is within the sphere of policy. In Asif Hameed and Others v State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court should not enter into the policy decision of the executive. Similarly, in Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma v State of Rajasthan and Others, it is stated that the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the Government is not justiciable by Court".

¶51

While so holding, their Lordships also noted that a similar challenge to the scheme made in Kerala High Court in K.K. Chandran and Another v Union of India and Others, was rejected and the scheme was upheld by the Kerala High Court. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court.

¶52

A differential treatment made on the basis of a reasonable classification is permissible in law provided it satisfied two conditions, namely (i) it must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. Under the scheme preference is given to those who come forward to pay a price higher than what is prescribed for the rest. This difference in price is an intelligible differentia aimed at augmenting revenue which is loss to the Government by way of subsidy provided to the consumers. It does not amount to negation of equality as the scheme is not limited to any particular class of the society and it is thrown open to all those who are willing to pay the enhanced price. Therefore, the scheme cannot also be faulted on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution."

¶53

We are in complete agreement with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The object of the Government is to augment revenue and the amount received is being used for financing electricity connection given to other farmers. Each waiting list is a separate category and equals are not being treated unequally.

¶54

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶55

In view of the above discussion and decision, the instant writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶56

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS I)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ars
To
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
TANGEDCO Ltd.,
NPKRR Maaligai,
No.144, Annasalai,
Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Director / Distribution,
TANGEDCO Ltd., NPKRR Maaligai,
No.144, Annasalai,
Chennai - 600 002
+1cc to Mr.K.Rameshuwar, Advocate, S.R.No.27189
+1cc to Mr.K.Myilsamy, Advocate, S.R.No.26561
WP.No.20834 of 2017
and WMP Nos.21692 & 21693 of 2017
VBA(CO)
CS/25/04/2019

¶57

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Murugesan, v. The Chairman Cum Managing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Murugesan, v. The Chairman Cum Managing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Dhanasekar Vs The Secretary

P.Nallasivam Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

T.M.Velu Vs The Secretary to Government

N.S.Ganesh, Vs The Commissioner

T.S.sankar Vs The Chief Secretary

Shahul Hameed @ Tamil Mulakam Sahul Hameed, Vs The Election Commission of India