In Brief
The appellant sought an agricultural electricity connection in 2010, but his application was returned citing a missing signature. After resubmission in 2011 with the signature added, the department took no action. When the application was revived after a writ petition in 2017, the department claimed the original application lacked a registration fee. The Supreme Court held that the department was obliged by law to communicate all defects in writing when returning the application. Since it failed to mention the registration fee requirement in 2011, it cannot now use this omission against the applicant. The Court directed the department to treat the application as registered from the 2011 resubmission date and process it accordingly within three months."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.