CHAIRMAN, M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. versus SHIV NARAYAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 958 · Decided: 24-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHAIRMAN, M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. 
v. 
SHIV NARAYAN AND ANR. 
AUGUST 24, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Electricity Laws: 
Electricity Tariff-Lawyer's office-Whether a commercial 
C establishment-Electricity Board issued circular classifying lawyer's office as 
a commercial establishment which attracted commercial rates, of tariff-
Validity of-High Court held that the office of a lawyer or a firm of lawyers 
was not a 'commercial establishment' and, therefore, rates applicable to 
commercial consumers could not be charged-Correctness of-Held: There 
D 
E 
is a fandamental distinction between a professional activity and an activity 
of a commercial character-The view expressed in New Delhi Municipal 
Council's case that if the user was not 'domestic' it might be 'non-domestic' 
and, therefore, commercial rates were applicable did not appear to be 
correct-The words 'non-domestic' and 'commercial' were not 
interchangeable-Hence, matter referred to a larger Bench. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Commerce'; "commetcial" and "profession "-Meaning of 
F 
Respondent No. 1 was the landlord of the house in which the 
respondent No. 2-Advocate was staying as a tenant. Subsequently, 
respondent No. 2 shifted to his own house but maintained his office in the 
tenanted premises. Respondent No. 1 was paying electricity charges at the 
rate applicable to the domestic consumers. The appellant-Board issued a 
circular classifying a lawyer's office' as a 'commercial establishment' and 
G issued a notice of demand that respondent No. 1 was liable to pay electricity 
charges at the rates applicable to commercial consumers. 
Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid 
notice of demand. The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that 
H the office of a lawyer or a firm of lawyers was not a 'commercial 
958 
CHAIRMAN. M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD v. SHIV NARA YAN 
959 
establishment' and, therefore, rates applicable to commercial consumers A 
could not be charged. Hence the appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. A professional activity must be an activity carried on by 
an individual by his personal skill and intelligence. There is a fundamental 
distinction, therefore, between a professional activity and an activity of 
a commercial character. 1967-A] 
V Sasidharan v. Peter and Karunakar, AIR (1984) SC 1700, relied on. 
Harendra H: Mehta v. Mukesh H Mehta, 11999] 5 SCC 108 and Dr. 
Devendra M Surti v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1969) SC 63, referred to. 
B 
c 
2. Even if it is accepted that the user was not domestic, it may be non-
domestic. But it does not automatically become "commercial". The words 
"non-domestic" and "commercial" are not interchangeable. The entry is D 
"commercial". It is not a residual entry; unless the user is commercial the 
rate applicable to the commercial user cannot be charged merely because 
it is not considered to be domestic user as has been held in New Delhi 
Municipal Council's case. 1968-D] 
New Delhi Municipal Council v. Sohan Lal Sachdev, 12000] 2 SCC 494, 
held inapplicable. 
Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edn., P. Ramanatha Aiyar: Advanced Law 
Lexicon 3rd Edn. Vol. I p. 876, Vol. 3 p. 3764, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary 
St" Edn., referred to. 
3. The view expressed in New Delhi Municipal Council's case does not 
appear to be correct. Therefore, the matter is refe.-red to a larger Bench. 
1968-E] 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 1065 of2000. G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5. 1999 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in M.P. No. 411 of 1987. 
Sakesh Kumar and D.K. Sinha for the Appellants. 
H 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondents-Ex-parte. 
B 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, 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. 
There is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.