Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—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 con