SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Cal) 27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
Arup Sarkar – Petitioner
Versus
C.E.S.C. Limited & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 18367 (W) of 2019
Decided On : 11-02-2020

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Subir Sanyal, Usof Ali Dewan, Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Kaustav Bagchi, Asif Dewan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Rajiv Lall, Advocate.

The legal profession does not constitute a commercial activity and should be categorized as 'Domestic (Urban)' for electricity tariff purposes.

Headnote:

Electricity Tariff - Legal Profession - Electricity Act, 2003, Shops and Establishment Act - [Electricity Act, 2003, Shops and Establishment Act]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, applied for a new electric connection under the category domestic (urban) but was quoted for a commercial (urban) connection by CESC limited. The petitioner objected to the quotation and sought a fresh quotation, but received no response, leading to the filing of this writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the legal profession cannot be equated as a commercial activity, and the chambers of a lawyer do not involve commercial activity. It held that the legal profession falls under the category of 'Domestic (Urban)' and directed CESC Ltd. to provide the new electric connection to the petitioner under this category.

Issues: The primary issue revolved around whether a lawyer using a domestic space as his chambers is liable to be charged with tariff on a commercial basis.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Shops and Establishment Act, along with legal definitions of 'commerce', 'commercial', and 'profession' to establish that the legal profession does not constitute a commercial activity and should be categorized as 'Domestic (Urban)' for electricity tariff purposes.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and CESC Ltd. was directed to provide the new electric connection to the petitioner under the category 'Domestic (Urban)'. The court rejected the prayer for stay of operation of the order.

Judgment :

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 & 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.

4. At the very outset, I would like to state that consumers as per the tariff order of CESC limited passed by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission dated July 4, 2018 have been bifurcated into various categories (18 categories) and the ones relevant to the present case are “2. Domestic (Urban)” and “3. Commercial (Urban)”. In the event, the ‘legal profession’ falls under the category of commercial, the matter would come to a rest; if not, the issue would remain whether in the present case the activity being carried out by the petitioner in a residential space would fall under the category of commercial (urban) as per the tariff.

5. Since the term “commercial” takes its roots from the word “commerce”. One may examine the definition of the word “commerce” alongwith the word “commercial” as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition as follows:

“Commerce. (16c) The exchange of goods and services, esp. on a large scale involving transportation between cities, states, and countries.

Commercial, adj. 1. Of, relating to, or involving the buying and selling of goods; mercantile . 2. Resulting or accruing from commer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top