* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 18th September, 2025

Pronounced on: 08th October, 2025

+ CRL.M.C. 4881/2005, CRL.M.A. 9803/2005

B. K. SOOD

E-76, Anand Niketan,

New Delhi-110021

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. A. S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tarranjit Singh Sawhney and Ms. Jasmeet Kaur Ajimal, Advocates with Petitioner in person.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Through

The Chief Architect, N.D.M.C.

Palika Kendra,

New Delhi

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Abhinav Bajaj, ASC with Mr. Saksham Ojha and Ms. Geetashi Chandna, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1978 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner B. K. Sood for quashing of Complaint No.487/2004 under Section 252 read with Section 369(1) of NDMC Act, 1994 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Petitioner submits that he is a practicing Advocate of this Court and is in the possession and occupation of premises bearing No. 17-18, Lower Ground Floor (LGF), Golf Apartments, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi. As per Summons received on 12.08.2005, the Petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 252 read with Section 369 of NDMC Act. Allegations of misuse of premises were premised on his carrying out commercial activity by running a lawyer’s office without permission of Chairperson, NDMC.

3. It is submitted that the cognizance was taken by learned MM against the settled principles of law and Notice was issued erroneously to the Petitioner vide Order dated 09.02.2004.

4. The question which arises is whether the legal services rendered by the office of a lawyer would amount to ‘commercial activity’. It is asserted that there are certain characteristics which distinguish the business and commercial activity or even actionable Tort from professional service. While a commercial activity involves investment of capital, profit and loss and co-operation of labour; on the other hand, the professional service of rendering advice in law is dependent upon one’s own academic qualification and individual skill. These peculiar and distinctive features of the legal profession do not permit its inclusion in commercial or semi-commercial activity, establishment, or institution.

5. The word ‘commercial’ originates from word ‘commerce’, which means exchange of goods, production, buying and selling or exchange of articles, but does not include profession like the one carried on by the Petitioner. A vocation or occupation requires special, usually advance education, knowledge and skill. The labour and skill involved in the legal profession is predominantly, mental and intellectual. The Supreme Court has held that an Office of the Lawyer is not a commercial establishment.

6. Classifying the activities of the Petitioner, who is an Advocate, as commercial activity is not only arbitrary but irrational, but is also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. The impugned Order is also challenged on the ground that it is in the format, reflecting that there was no application of mind to the facts of the case and no reasons have been disclosed for taking cognizance.

8. Further, from the provisions of NDMC Act, it is apparent that in order to improve its Revenue, commercial charges may be levied for electricity and house tax. The violation of Section 252 read with Section 369 of NDMC Act, does not deal with charge of house tax or electricity, for which there are distinct and separate provisions. Tariff for the electricity supplied to the office of a Lawyer, is already subject matter of various Writ Petitions including Writ No.899/1992, wherein the Interim Order was passed, which still hold good.

9. It is further submitted that Section 252 of NDMC Act, even if applicable, does not apply to the use of premises not used for human habitation wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document