CHAIRMAN M P ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SHIV NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question is raised in this appeal i.e. whether the legal profession is a commercial activity or is it a trade or business. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and its functionaries charged the respondent No. 2-Advocate for electricity consumption at the rate applicable for commercial consumers. The demand was questioned by filing a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which by the impugned judgment held that the legal profession does not involve a commercial activity and, therefore, the rate applicable to commercial consumers was not applicable to him. The judgment is questioned by the Board in this appeal.

(2.) There is not much dispute on the factual aspect. Respondent No. 1 was at the relevant point of time the landlord of the house where respondent No.2-G.D. Padraha, Advocate was staying as a tenant. He was occupying the tenanted premises till 1981. Thereafter, he shifted to his own house, but he maintained his office in the tenanted premises. There was an electricity service line in that house and it was in the name of the landlord who was paying at the rate applicable to domestic consumers. In January, 1986 some officials of the Board inspected the service meter and served a notice to the landlord alleging that he is using the service connection for commercial purposes instead of domestic purposes. The landlord replied stating that he had never used the premises for commercial purposes. However, the respondent No.2 had his office in the premises. Notice of demand was raised after considering the reply and it was held that the rate applicable to the commercial consumers was applicable, on the basis of a circular issued by the Board laying down different types of connections for domestic purposes and commercial purposes. The validity of the circular classifying office of an advocate as a commercial establishment was questioned in the writ petition. The High Court as noted above held that the office of a lawyer or a firm of lawyers is not a commercial establishment and therefore rates applicable to commercial consumers cannot be charged.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-Board and its functionaries submitted that the High Court has not considered the relevant aspects. When a lawyer has his office-cum-residence in particular premises the domestic rate is applicable. Where however only the chamber is functioning, clearly commercial activities are being carried out and therefore commercial rate was rightly applied. According to him, the two categories of consumers have to be classified as domestic consumers and non domestic consumers. Those who are not domestic consumers fall to the second category and merely because for the sake of convenience the description has been given as "commercial" it does not make a difference. When one is not a domestic consumer, as a natural consequence the rate applicable to the other category has to be charged. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.