A. K. MATHUR, C. J.

( 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 :"49. Provision for the sale of electricity by the Board to persons other than licensees.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of regulations, if any made in this behalf, the Board may supply electricity to any person not being a licensee upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit and may for the purposes of such supply frame uniform tariffs. (2) In fixing the uniform tariffs, the Board shall have regard to all or many of the following factors, namely :- (a) the nature of the supply and the purposes for which it is required; (b) the co-ordinated development of the supply and distribution of electricity within the State in the most efficient and economical manner, with particular reference to such development in areas not for the time being served or adequately served by the licensee; (c) the simplification and standardisation of methods and rates of charges for such supplies; (d) the extension and cheaping of supplies of electricity to sparsely developed areas. (3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall derogate from the power of the Board, if it considers it necessary or expedient to fix different tariffs for the supply of electricity to any person not being a licensee, having regard to the geographical position of any area, the nature of the supply and purpose for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document