Judgment :- 1. As the common question of law and facts is involved in these writ petitions, therefore, these writ petitions shall be disposed of by a common order. 2. The Petitioner is a Non Governmental Organisation based at Chidambaram, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu, established in the year 1987 as a Trust with an object to develop the poor section of the society. 3. The petitioner has rendered service of two decades in and around area of operation by focusing on the service to the people particularly addressing social problems such as rehabilitation of the victims of rural disasters. The petitioner is in receipt of several awards. The petitioner also focusses on the establishment of an economically emancipated, educated, eco-friendly and enlightened egalitarian society, empowered with essential and efficient technology and methodology to cope with the foreseeable challenges of the modern world and the unforeseen havocs of natural disasters. 4. In recognition of various services of the petitioner, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research has given sanction to the petitioner to establish Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) in 16.21.50 hectares of land in Udhayanatham, Kodalikaruppure & Chozhamadevi villages of Ariyalur under the Plan Scheme of the Council. 5. The petitioner has established KVK for the past two years, where it is conducting training programmes in respect of agricultural activities. In order to effectively implement various programmes, several agricultural activities like cultivation of crops is necessary as part of the training. The petitioner accordingly applied for the grant of electricity service connection under tariff applicable for agricultural pumpsets with the respondents. 6. In response to the request made by the petitioner, the respondents informed the petitioner, that a request has been made to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission for clarification for adoption of tariff applicable for agricultural pumpsets to the petitioner, and clarification from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission was awaited. 7. It is the submission of the petitioner that pending the said clarification, the petitioner was given electricity service connection under Nos.1532 and 1533 in respect of two borewells for irrigation of the agricultural lands used for KVK programme under tariff 2B which is applicable for recognised educational institutions on the assurance that on receipt of the clarification from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, the respondents will convert the electricity service connection based on the directions from the Regulatory Commission. 8. 8. It is the submission of the petitioner, that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission permitted the grant of agricultural connection to the petitioner but inspite of recommendation of the Regulatory Commission, the respondents have failed to convert the electricity connection of the petitioner to Low Tension Tariff IV. 9. The petitioner therefore prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to convert the electricity tariff of the petitioner to one under Low Tension Tariff IV, as per the recommendation by Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition vehemently contended, that the petitioner is a Non Governmental Organisation established with the object for welfare of the farmers, to teach them latest technicalities in agriculture. The function of the petitioner falls under the agricultural pursuit. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to Order No.3 of 2010 dated 31.07.2010 purported to have been passed under Section 64 of the Electricity Act 2003. Clause 2.22.15 of the order reads as under: 2.22.15 Agricultural tariff may be extended to two numbers of bore well established by 'Centre for Rural Education and Economic Development (CREED)' an NGO established by Indian Council of Agricultural Research under the network of Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVK). The KVK is to foster propagation and cultivation of different economically beneficial crops and horticultural plants for the demonstration and distribution to the wider range of small and marginal farmers." 12 Whereas the Heading of the Chapter II of the order reads as under: "ISSUE-WISE SUMMARY OF VIEWS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS, RESPONSE OF TNEB AND RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION" It is issued in the form of comments and suggestions from the respondents. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that clause 2.22.15 is the Ruling of the Commission passed under section 64 of the Electricity Act 2003, which is binding on the respondents. 14. The learned counsel for the Electricity Board opposes the writ petitions by contending, that clause 2.22.15 on which the reliance has been placed by the petitioner is not an order but only suggestion as the order dealing with tariff categorisation under tariff schedule. 15. 14. The learned counsel for the Electricity Board opposes the writ petitions by contending, that clause 2.22.15 on which the reliance has been placed by the petitioner is not an order but only suggestion as the order dealing with tariff categorisation under tariff schedule. 15. In the tariff schedule, the Low Tension tariff IV under Chapter 9.11.20, reads as under : "(1) This tariff is applicable to Agriculture and the Government Seed Farms, Pumpsets of Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, pump sets of Research Centre of Tamilnadu Forest Department, pump sets of Government coconut nurseries and pump sets of Government coil seed farms. (2) This tariff is applicable irrespective of ownership of land if the usage of electricity is for agriculture and the usage is restricted to the owned/leased area. (3) All the new services under this category shall have ISI marked motors and power factor compensation capacitors to qualify for the supply. All the existing services should be provided with power factor compensation capacitors within one year. Noncompliance to provide the capacitors shall invite compensation charges as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission regulations. (4) The services under this tariff shall be permitted to have lighting loads up to 50 watts per 1000 watts of power connected subject to a maximum of 150 watts inclusive wattage of pilot lamps. Lighting the farm or the field around the pump sets should be through energy saving compact fluorescent lamps only. Extra lighting over and above the limit and for uses other than lighting shall be through a separate service under LT Tariff V only. (5) Agriculturists shall be permitted to use the water pumped from the well and stored in overhead tanks for bonafide domestic purposes in the farmhouse. The farmhouse shall be in close proximity not exceeding 50 meters from the well. (6) Sugar cane crushing motors and allied equipments shall be permitted to be connected and operated only when the respective agricultural services are provided with energy meters. When such services are not provided with meters, the consumer shall immediately opt for the metering." 16. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. (6) Sugar cane crushing motors and allied equipments shall be permitted to be connected and operated only when the respective agricultural services are provided with energy meters. When such services are not provided with meters, the consumer shall immediately opt for the metering." 16. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. The reading of Clause 2.22.15 of Order III 2010 dated 31.07.2010 clearly shows that Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission clearly directed that the agricultural tariff may be extended to two numbers of borewell established by Centre for Rural education and Economic development (CREED)' an NGO established by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research under the network of Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVK). The directions are very clear and cannot be treated to be mere suggestion as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. 17. The heading of Chapter II of the order clearly shows that Chapter II of the order is not only summary views, comments and suggestion and response of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, but is also ruling of the commission. 18. The Clause 9.11.20 of the order dated 31.07.2010 deals with Low Tension tariff IV which is made applicable to agriculture and the Government seed farms, Pumpsets of Tamil Nadu Agricuture University, Pumpsets of Research Centre of Tamil Nadu Forest Department, Pumpsets of Government Coconut nurseries and Pumpsets of Govt. Coir Seed farms. Thus, non inclusion of the name of the petitioner in this Chapter is only for the reason that ruling for agriculture tariff to the petitioner was passed under Clause 2.22.15 itself. The interpretation of order dated 31.07.2010 the only conclusion which could be derived is that while Govt. Seed farms, pumpsets of Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Pumpsets of Research Centre of Tamil Nadu Forest dept., Pumpsets of Govt. Coconut nurseries and Pumpsets of Govt. Coir seed farms have been included by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission for making agricultural tariff for these institutions. The agricultural tariff for the period stand ordered in view of the request made by the petitioner and taking into consideration the response of Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission who had also recommended this benefit to the petitioner. 19. The combined reading of Chapter II and IX therefore leaves no manner of doubt that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission has extended benefit of Low Tension tariff IV to the petitioner. 19. The combined reading of Chapter II and IX therefore leaves no manner of doubt that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission has extended benefit of Low Tension tariff IV to the petitioner. At the sake of repetition, it may be stated that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that ruling under Clause 2.22.15 is mere suggestion and not recommendation, cannot be accepted as the Chapter II also includes ruling of Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission. It is well settled law that interpreting any constituted ruling or the judgment, no word of it can be excluded or added, unless it leads to absurd results. Needless to say that the ruling of Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission is binding on the respondents. 20. Consequently, both these writ petitions are allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to extend benefit of Low Tension tariff IV to the petitioner, within two months of receipt of certified copy of this order. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.