{1} S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2386/2001. RAM CHANDRA & ORS. VS. JODHPUR VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. DATE OF ORDER : 17.07.2007. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. R.S. Saluja for the petitioners. Mr. Sumeet Mehta for the respondents. The petitioners who are agriculturists by profession submitted various applications for getting electricity connections under the category of “Agriculture”. A priority number was given by the respondent Rajasthan State Electricity Board to the petitioners, details whereof are given in para 3 of the writ petition. The allegation of the petitioners is that the respondents erroneously, at a first instance, rejected their applications and provided electricity connections to the persons, who were at lower pedestal in the priorities. According to the petitioners, no demand notice was ever given by the Board to them and as such, their applications for electricity connections were wrongly rejected on the count that they failed to satisfy the demand. {2} In reply to the writ petition, the respondents in quite unambiguous term not only stated that demand notices were issued to the petitioners but also placed on record copies of such demand notices. According to the averments contained in reply to the writ petition, a demand notice was issued to the petitioner No.1 on 26.08.1998, but he failed to satisfy the demand made. A demand notice to respondent No.2 according to the respondents was given on 30.03.1998 (Annexure R/3), but he failed to satisfy the demand. The details of demand notices are also given by the respondents with regard to other petitioners. The averments contained in reply to the writ petition to the effect that demand notices were issued and served upon the petitioners, but they did not satisfy the same is not refuted by the petitioners. In such circumstances, the only plausible conclusion that can be given is that the petitioners did not satisfy the demand made by the Board for extending electric connection and as such the Board was having no option but to reject the applications submitted by the petitioners. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any merit in this petition for writ. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/