Petitioner is a Doctor (General Physician) by profession. He superannuated from the post of Director, T.B. Demonstration & Training Centre, Darbhanga on 31.08.1993. 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.

4. The issue, therefore, to be decided in the present Writ Application is whether the demand or the insistence of the respondents to convert the Doctor’s Consultation Chamber into a non-domestic category is supported by law or the tariff notification in vogue at the relevant time.

5. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Electricity Board submits that the Board is bound by the gazette notification, wherein the tariff provisions have been duly notified. Changes were brought about in the 1993 tariff and a separate category has been created of non-domestic load, fans and power service and the applicability of such categorization has been indicated in the tariff, which has been annexed as Annexure- A to the counter affidavit.

6. Counsel for the Board submits that from a reading of the above provision, it is evident that Hospital (private or government), Clinic, Nursing Home etc. etc. are to be brought under this category and the advice or direction given to the petitioner for acquiring a separate connection for the Consultation Chamber was in light of the provision of the tariff, which is duly supported by law.

7. Wherever a liability is sought to be imposed upon a citizen, strict interpretation of the provisions have to be made. Since the respondent-authorities had issued a gazette notification, notifying the tariff, where specific words had been used and the establishments, which come under the new category of tariff had been indicated therein, then the Court will have to understand whether the word “Hospital”, “Clinic”, “Nursing Home” is to be read in such a fashion or given a wider meaning to bring even a Doctor’s Consultation Chamber within its purview. The notification or the tariff