ARUP SARKAR Vs. C.E.S.C. LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conundrum to be resolved in the present writ petition primarily revolves around the issue as to whether a lawyer using a domestic space as his chambers is liable to be charged with tariff on commercial basis. In the present factual matrix, the petitioner is a practicing lawyer enrolled in the year 2011, having a chamber in the ground floor of the multi storied building where he resides on the third floor. The petitioner has made an application for a new electric connection on the ground floor under the category domestic (urban). However, the CESC limited has sent him a quotation for payment of service charges and security deposit on the basis of a commercial (urban) connection. Subsequent to receiving the said quotation the petitioner has written to the CESC limited raising an objection to the quotation and has sought a fresh quotation on the basis of domestic (urban) connection. This letter of the petitioner dated September 3, 2019 has not been replied to by the CESC limited, and therefore, aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Subir Sanyal, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the profession of a lawyer cannot be equated as a commercial activity. He submitted that neither the Electricity Act , 2003 nor any Rules or Regulations framed thereunder define the term "commercial". He, accordingly referred to V. Sasidharan -v- M/s. Peter and Karunakar reported in AIR 1984 SC 1700 and Dipti Kumar Base and Ors. -v- Chief Inspector, Shops and Establishment & Anr. reported in 90 CWN 353 wherein under the Shops and Establishment Act the establishment of a legal practitioner/ firm of lawyers was held not to be a commercial establishment.

(3.) Mr. Rajiv Lall, appearing on behalf of the CESC limited firstly distinguished the two judgments cited by the petitioners on the ground that the issue in question in this writ petition is not related to classification of the premises and wholly relates to the use of electricity in a premises and the imposition of electricity tariff for the said use. To buttress his arguments, he relied on an unreported Larger Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board and Others -v- Shiv Narayan and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1065 of 2000) to indicate that the activity of a lawyer running an office falls under the category of non-domestic use. Mr. Lall further relied on Rajendra G. Shah -v- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited reported in 2011 (5) MhLj 360, Guj. Vij, Com. Ltd. and Ors. -v- Babulal Birabhai Renpara reported in AIR 2010 Guj 76 and Gujarat Electricity Board -v- Ashwinbhai A. Maniyar and Ors. reported in (2010) 51 GLR 679 to advance his arguments that the judgment in Shiv Narayan and Anr. (supra) laid down the correct law and is being followed by different High Courts.