Commercial Electricity Rates Inapplicable To Lawyers' Chambers As Legal Profession Is Not ‘Commercial’ In Nature: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the activities carried out by lawyers are not ‘commercial activity’ and electricity rates charged from commercial establishments cannot be charged for lawyers' chambers for carrying out professional activities.

“An advocate or a legal practitioner is duty-bound to act as an officer of the Court. An advocate is prohibited to do any business or involve in any commercial activity and they are also restrained by the rules framed by the Bar Council of India from advertising their professional activities....” held a bench comprising of Justices Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Anish Kumar Gupta.

Further, the Court held that,

“… All these are the features, which categorically distinguish, the legal profession from the trade or business. Therefore, the legal profession by no stretch of imagination can be called as the commercial activity, trade or business...The respondents are directed to charge for the consumption of electricity by the lawyers in their chambers in the court premises as per the rate schedule LMV-I [domestic] as approved by the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission.”

Sadar Tehsil Bar Association approached the Court against the applicability of commercial rates to the chamber of lawyers.

Counsel for Petitioner contended that the profession of an advocate is not a commercial activity. By playing a role in the administration of justice, lawyers serve society. It is a profession in the nature of social service, and not a commercial activity, it was argued.

Reliance was placed upon earlier circulars of U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission whereby, judiciary has been placed under LMV-1 category, applicable to domestic users. Further, it was argued that chambers of Advocates of District Bar Association, Noida were being charged under the LMV-1 category. Applicability of different rates in different parts of the State is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, it was contended.

Counsel for U.P. Power Corporation argued that the activity of lawyers falls under ‘non-domestic’ purposes as per Clause 13 of the rate schedule of financial year 2022-23 which specifies activities to be charged under the LMV-2 category. Since the activity of lawyers cannot be said to be ‘domestic activity’, LMV-2 rates would be applicable, UPPCL contended.

Further, grievance, if any, with respect to the rate schedule should be raised before the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission which approves the rate schedules, it was argued by the Respondent.

The questions of law which arose for consideration by the Court were:

“1. Whether the activities/profession of an advocate is a commercial activity, which will attract the commercial rate of electricity consumption?

2. Whether the Rate Schedule LMV-2, which is applicable for the commercial activities, can be applied for the electricity supplied to the Lawyers Chambers?

3. Whether the respondents can discriminate between the electricity supply to the advocates' chambers in different court compounds?”

The Court observed that “the words occurred in the same context must take its colour from each other.” Since the activity of lawyers is not covered under the LMV-2 category which pertains to ‘non-domestic’ activity, it must be established of a similar nature to be charged under the said schedule.

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board and Ors. v. Shiv Narayan Chopra and the Bar Council Rules, the Court held that the legal profession is non-commercial in nature and commercial tariff rates cannot be charged from lawyers.

The Court held that even though LMV-2 rates are applicable only to ‘non-domestic’ users, the categories mentioned are carrying out commercial activities in the nature of trade or business. Thus, the same cannot be applied to lawyers' chambers. Earlier circulars imposing LMV-1 rates on legal profession/ judiciary will be applicable to lawyers' chambers within the premises of the Court, it held.

On the issue of different rates being applied in Gautam Budh Nagar and Ghaziabad, the Court noted that the UP Electricity Regulatory Commission is responsible for tariff rates in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, “the respondents cannot discriminate between the electricity supply to the advocates' chambers in different court compounds, in the same State, where the rate schedules are approved by the same authority.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: Tehsil Bar Association, Sadar Tehsil Parisar, Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 245 [WRIT - C No. - 2637 of 2023]

Case Citaiton: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 245

Counsel for Petitioner: Vivek Prakash Mishra

Counsel for Respondent: Pranjal Mehrotra, Krishna Agarawal

Click Here To Read/Download Order