JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the order made in Ka.No.Se.Po/Na/E/Va.AKo.Vi/No.178/2016 dated 12.04.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to effect service connection to the petitioner in pursuance to the application No.120/97-98 dated 04.07.1997 forthwith.) 1. The petitioner challenges the rejection of his request for energising the motor pumpset, made by the Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Erode on 12.04.2016. 2. According to the petitioner, he applied for grant of electricity service connection for his agricultural borewell situate at S.No.1015/1F of Kavindapadi Village on 04.07.1997. Nearly after 13 years, on 03.11.2010, the respondents informed the petitioner to submit readiness along with the required certificates for availing the power supply under the Special Priority Scheme introduced by the Government for energising 1,00,000 motor pumpsets during the financial year. Though the petitioner claimed that he had submitted the required documents, he did not bother to enter into any further correspondence with the respondents for nearly six years. 3. All of a sudden, on 07.02.2016, the petitioner sent a letter to the Assistant Engineer [Rural], claiming that he had submitted the documents and he was asked to wait because there was no sufficient power supply in the transformer situate nearby his land. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner moved this Court in WP.NO.8694/2016 seeking a mandamus directing the respondents therein to consider his representation dated 17.02.2016. This Court also obliged the petitioner by issuing a mandamus as prayed for. 4. Pursuant to the order of this Court made in the said writ petition, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had submitted his readiness when he was required to. The respondents would also add that they waited for a complete 5 year period till 31.01.2016 and the petitioner did not respond to the letter dated 03.11.2010 though he acknowledged the receipt of the said letter. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner has lost the priority and he has to apply afresh and wait in the queue. 5. The respondents would also add that they waited for a complete 5 year period till 31.01.2016 and the petitioner did not respond to the letter dated 03.11.2010 though he acknowledged the receipt of the said letter. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner has lost the priority and he has to apply afresh and wait in the queue. 5. As per the scheme for provision of service connection for agricultural pumpsets for which the Government provides free electricity, the applicant will have to furnish the readiness as and when called upon and if readiness is furnished within a period of five years from the date of the issue of the Call Letter, the licensee acts on that and provides service connection for those agricultural wells and borewells. Though the petitioner claims that he had submitted the documents, there is no acknowledgment for such submission. 6. The very fact that the petitioner had waited for nearly five years from 03.11.2010 till 17.02.2016 to make a representation implies that the petitioner had not furnished the readiness as sought for. The time for furnishing the readiness expired on 31.01.2016. The petitioner woke up only on 17.02.2016 to make a representation. I do not think that the respondents could be blamed for cancelling the registration made by the petitioner. If at all anyone could be blamed, it is the petitioner who has to blame himself of his inaction. 7. Mr.C.Munusamy, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had applied under the ordinary scheme, but he was asked to submit his readiness under the Special Priority Scheme. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the invitation to offer readiness itself on 03.11.2010 is not proper. 8. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would, on instructions, submit that there was no further demand for any payment under the Special Priority Scheme. It was only a scheme launched by the State to energize at least 1,00,000 pumpsets during that period. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was called upon to pay something more to get the agricultural service connection under the Special Priority Scheme, appears to be incorrect. 9. In view of the above, I do not see any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.