B.N.PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Doctor (General Physician) by profession. He superannuated from the post of Director, T.B. Demonstration & Training Centre, Darbhanga on 31.8.1993. Post retirement, he settled down at his home place, which is supposed to be in Mohalla-Kashipur in the town of Samastipur. Petitioner has a dwelling house, consisting of three floors, which he uses for his personal occupation and use. One floor, however, has been rented out to a tenant and two rooms of the ground floor is used by the petitioner as a "Consultation Chamber", whenever a person in distress or otherwise is willing to consult him, relating to a medical problem.

(2.) Petitioner had an electricity connection, provided under the domestic service category. Bills were raised and paid by him regularly without any dispute of any kind between the parties. The problem arose when an inspection was carried out by the Electrical Executive Engineer on 12.12.2002 and a report for the said inspection generated in terms of Annexure-6. The inspection report Indicates that the consumer had 3 fans, consuming 60 watts each, adding up to 180 watts; 4 tubes, each of 40 watts, adding up to 160 watts; 3 numbers of bulbs, each consuming 100 watts, adding up to 300 watts and an energy saving tube of 14 watts, all adding up to 654 watts, which has been rounded up to 1 K.W. load. An opinion was expressed in the said report that the two rooms on the ground floor, where the above connection was also being utilized, is for providing consultation for patients and the rest of the portion of connection is being utilized for domestic purposes. Advice given to the consumer was that he should take a fresh connection under the 1993 tariff, which will be categorized under non-domestic load, fans and power service. The respondent-Electricity Board has treated the Doctor's Consultation Chamber with 654 watts load factor to be a commercial venture on his part and, therefore, a different connection were' required to be taken by the petitioner.

(3.) This is the background under which the dispute arose and the petitioner decided to file the Writ Application, when respondents stuck to their guns that the petitioner was not entitled to continue with the domestic connection for the Doctor's Consultation Chamber.