S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10/2007. Parwati Devi and anr. Vs. J.V.V.N.L. and ors. Date of order :- 21/1/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri B.R. Rana for the petitioners. Shri Shailesh Prakash Sharma for the respondents. **** The short controversy involved in the present matter is regarding non-release of the electricity connection to the petitioners. It is contended that respondents had issued a demand notice for deposition of a sum of Rs.13,100/- vide their demand notice dated 1/10/2004 but due to poor financial condition of petitioner-Smt.Parwati Devi who is widow, she could not arrange for the funds and thereby requisite amount could not be deposited. Subsequently, another demand notice was issued on 30/12/2004 but then also the amount could not be deposited. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now the petitioners could arrange for the funds despite of fact that they are quite poor but then for their survival, cultivation of land is necessary therefore, they are ready to deposit the updated amount if same is demanded even as per the revised rate or by charging some interest on the original amount. SBCWP No.10/2007. ( 2 ) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the respondent-Company was ready to give electricity connection to the petitioners but when petitioners had themselves failed to deposit the requisite amount, connection could not be released. It was further submitted that now, connection cannot be released because the agriculture connections are released in order of priority. Looking to the facts above and taking note of poor condition of the petitioners, when the respondent-Company was ready to release the electricity connection to the petitioners then merely late deposition of the amount should not come to their way moreso when petitioners are ready to deposit the amount at the prevalent rate as on date or even ready to pay the interest. In view of above, technicality of priority list should not come in the way because definitely it is only as per the priority list that demand notice was issued by the respondents in the year 2004 therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have lost their priority in any manner. SBCWP No.10/2007. ( 3 ) The respondents are directed to issue a fresh demand notice to the petitioners for release of the agriculture electricity connection as per the rates now existing and if such demand is raised, petitioners may pay the said amount and if such an amount is paid, respondents are directed to release the agriculture electricity connection to the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this should not be treated as a precedent because necessary action would be taken by the respondents taking it to a hard case. Prayer made is accepted. The directions so issued in this writ petition shall not be treated as a precedent. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil