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) 102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Shekhar B Saraf, J.
Arup Sarkar - Appellant
Versus
C.E.S.C. Limited And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 18367 of 2019
Decided On : 11-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Subir Sanyal, Advocate, Usof Ali Dewan, Advocate, Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Advocate, Kaustav Bagchi, Advocate, Asif Dewan, Advocate, Rajiv Lall, Advocate

The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'commercial' in the context of the legal profession and its classification under electricity tariff, emphasizing the distinction between 'non-domestic' and 'commercial' use.

Headnote:

Electricity Tariff - Legal Profession - Electricity Act, 2003 - Domestic (Urban), Commercial (Urban) - V. Sasidharan -v- M/s. Peter and Karunakar, (1984) AIR SC 1700, Dipti Kumar Base & Ors. -v- Chief Inspector, Shops and Establishment & Anr. reported in 90 CWN 353, Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board and Others -v- Shiv Narayan and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1065 of 2000), Rajendra G. Shah -v- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, (2011) 5 MhLJ 360, Guj. Vij, Com. Ltd. and Ors. -v- Babulal Birabhai Renpara, (2010) AIR Gujarat 76, Gujarat Electricity Board -v- Ashwinbhai A. Maniyar and Ors.,2010 51 GLR 679, Kanubhai Shantilal Pandya and Ors. -v- Vadodara Municipal Corporation (Special Civil Application No. 13289 of 2014, Decided on 04.08.2016) - The court discussed the interpretation of the term 'commercial' in the context of the legal profession and its classification under electricity tariff, highlighting the distinction between 'non-domestic' and 'commercial' use, and concluded that the legal profession does not fall under the category of 'Commercial (Urban)'.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, sought a new electric connection for his chamber in a multi-storied building where he resides. The electricity provider quoted service charges and security deposit based on a commercial connection, leading to the filing of a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the definition of 'commercial' and 'profession' and examined relevant case laws to determine the classification of the legal profession under the electricity tariff. It concluded that the legal profession does not fall under the category of 'Commercial (Urban)' and directed the electricity provider to provide a new electric connection under the category 'Domestic (Urban)' to the petitioner.

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 emphasized the distinction between 'non-domestic' and 'commercial' use, highlighting the interpretation of the term 'commercial' in the context of the legal profession and its classification under electricity tariff. It held that the legal profession does not fall under the category of 'Commercial (Urban)' based on the analysis of relevant legal provisions and case laws.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the electricity provider to provide the new electric connection to the petitioner under the category 'Domestic (Urban)'. The court also rejected the prayer for stay of operation of the order passed.

JUDGMENT

Shekhar B. Saraf, J. - 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, (1984) AIR 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, (2011) 5 MhLJ 360 , Guj. Vij, Com. Ltd. and Ors. -v- Babulal Birabhai Renpara, (2010) AIR Gujarat 76 and Gujarat Electricity Board -v- Ashwinbhai A. Maniyar and Ors.,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 commerce or exchange

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