SHIV NARAYAN Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have by this petition raised a very interesting question whether the legal profession is a commercial activity or it is a trade or business. Before we attempt to answer this question, it would be relevant to dilate few facts.Petitioner No. 2 G. D. Padrah is an Advocate and the petitioner No. 1 Shiv Narayan is landlord of the House No. 403 Gol Bazar, Jabalpur. Petitioner No. 2 G. D. Padrah, Advocate lives at first floor as a tenant. The petitioner No. 2 occupied the upper floor premises up to 1981 and was living in the said house and also maintained his office as an Advocate. Thereafter he shifted in his own house but maintained his office in the said tenanted premises. There is an electric service line in that house and it is in the name of the petitioner No. 1 and he is paying the domestic charges. On 17-1-1986, some officer of the MPEB (M.P. Electricity Board) inspected the service meter and served a notice to the petitioner No. 1 that he is using the service connection for commercial purposes instead of domestic purposes. Annexure B is the copy of notice. The petitioner No. 1 replied to the notice that he never used the premises for commercial purposes. However, the petitioner No. 2 has his office as an Advocate. The respondents did not consider the reply of the petitioner satisfactory and served upon him a notice of demand in the sum of Rs. 6065.28 p. along with the bill for May, 1980 to November, 1985 (Annex. E).

(2.) Then again, the respondent No. 2 served another notice of demand dated 4-11-1986 (Annex. F) for a sum of Rs. 2825.75 p. Again on 1-12-1986, a notice was issued to the petitioner No. 2 to make payment of the demand raised and that too was replied by him. Similar notices were again issued demanding the amount treating the premises in question to be commercial establishment. It is alleged that the Board has issued all these notices of demand on the basis of circular issued by the respondents Annex. K whereby they have laid down different tariff for domestic purposes and for commercial purposes. In this background, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the circular issued by the M.P. Electricity Board Annex. K classifying the office of the Advocate as a commercial establishment and also prayed that the demand notices issued vide Annexures F and J. may be quashed.

(3.) In order to appreciate the contents and the import of the circular issued by the M.P.E.B., it is necessary to refer to the same. Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 which enables the Electricity Board to issue a uniform tariff. Section 49 of the Act of 1948 reads as under :