KRUPA ZUBIN Vs. MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is an architect is using premises situated at Plot No. 58, Road No. 2, Pestom Sagar, Chembur, Mumbai, exclusively for the purposes of his professional work. Before this Court, it is an admitted position that the premises are not being used for residential purposes. The petitioner had challenged an assessment under section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and a decision of the Appellate Authority under section 127. Both the Authorities held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the tariffs prescribed for residential consumers.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the establishment of an architect is not a commercial establishment and hence the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the residential tariff.

(3.) For the purposes of this case, it is not necessaiy for the Court to inquire into the broader question as to whether the establishment of an architect is a commercial establishment. The Court is concerned with interpreting the tariff schedule which has been prescribed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission on 24 April, 2007. The tariff schedule forms a part of the tariff order issued on 24 April, 2007 under sections 61 and 62. The Low Tension Tariff comprises of various categories. LT-1 or the residential category consists of (i) Below Poverty Line (BPL consumers) and (ii) residential consumers other than the BPL. The latter (residential consumers other than BPL) comprises inter alia of the following: