A K SINGHLA Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of CWP Nos. 2346/91, 2533/91, 2952/91, 2953/91, 3005/91, 3006/91, 3205/91, 3300/91, 3447/91, 3449/91, and 5784/93. All these petitions raise a common question relating to the entitlement of the respondent-NDMC to levy misuser charges @ 200% of the tariff.

(2.) It is not necessary to notice the facts in details of each individual case. Suffice it to state that all the petitioners herein are professionals and belong to 5 categories : (i) legal practitioners (ii) chartered accountants (iii) architects (iv) doctors running clinics and (v) agencies making available junior level employees. They are in enjoyment of electricity supply meant for domestic use. In view of the whole or part of the premises having been found being subjected to the use for office/clinic as abovesaid, the respondent has billed the petitioners for misuse charges calculated @ 200% of the Tariff. It is not disputed that if the supply of electricity meant for domestic consumption cannot be used by the abovesaid professionals for their professional purpose than the levying of misuse charges would be justified.

(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that none of the abovesaid professions is a commercial activity. The office of a professional cannot be called a shop, commercial establishment or an industry. At the most it is a service. The use of electric supply in the premises where such professional activities are carried on can be classified only as use for domestic consumption and hence it cannot be called a misuse justifying levy of misuser charges.