A division bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice YG Khobragade issued notice in a writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Electricity Regulation Commission’s (MERC) categorization of advocates as commercial consumers.
The court cited the judgments in Chairman, MP Electricity Board and Ors. v. Shiv Narayan and Anr. (2005), Dhanraj Singh Choudhary v. Nathulal Vishwakarma (2012), and Tehsil Bar Association, Sadar Tehsil Parisar, Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad v. UP Power Corporation Limited and Ors (2023).
The Allahabad High Court’s judgment in the Tehsil Bar Association case held that the activities carried out by lawyers are not ‘commercial activity,’ and electricity rates charged from commercial establishments cannot be applied to lawyers’ chambers. The court emphasized the non-commercial nature of the legal profession, highlighting the duty of advocates as officers of the court and the prohibition on engaging in business or commercial activities as per the Bar Council of India rules.
The Allahabad HC further directed that electricity consumption by lawyers in their chambers should be charged at the rate approved for domestic users by the UP Electricity Regulatory Commission.
In Dhanraj Singh Choudhary v. Nathulal Vishwakarma, the Apex court said that the legal profession is a noble profession, and not a business or a trade.
In Chairman, MP Electricity Board and Others v. Shiv Narayan, the Supreme Court held that the legal profession does not involve commercial activity. The court rejected the application of commercial rates for electricity consumption by an advocate and emphasized the non-commercial character of the legal profession.
The Bombay High Court, taking note of these precedents, has until further orders restrained MERC and MSEDCL from issuing further bills treating the lawyer’s office as a commercial establishment. However, normal billing is permitted.
The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on January 24, 2024.
About Post Author
